|
From: | Jan Djärv |
Subject: | bug#5721: Feature request: Function that returns absolute coordinates |
Date: | Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:22:27 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 |
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu skrev 2010-07-02 11.15:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:06:49 +0200, Jan Djärv<jan.h.d@swipnet.se> said:One could argue that we are always dealing with scaled pixels, and absolute in this context means "absolute scaled" instead of "absolute unscaled". Can't we always use scaled coordinates? When do we need to handle unscsaled?I think major motivation to use the absolute coordinate system is to specify the frame location (OP's case), or to pass it to external programs (the SCIM case). "Absolute unscaled" one is more suitable for such uses.
I would imagine that for frame positioning, absolute scaled would be the default, as top and left frame parameters should also be absolute scaled.
To pass absolute unscaled to an external program or to position on absolute unscaled a special functions would be needed. But I don't think a function that gives window edges is the place to do that.
Jan D.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |