[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16052: 24.3.50; `set-frame-parameter` broken for `tool-bar-lines`
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
bug#16052: 24.3.50; `set-frame-parameter` broken for `tool-bar-lines` |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Jan 2014 17:39:27 +0100 |
>> Before using terms like "wrong" in bug reports please consult the
>> Elisp manual:
>>
>> On each frame, the frame parameter `tool-bar-lines' controls
>> how many lines' worth of height to reserve for the tool bar.
>
> That does not contradict my expectation. Is there some nuanced
> interpretation of "reserved" that I need to guess here, such that
> perhaps "reserving" that much height does not actually give the
> tool bar area that much height?
No. It's the term "lines' worth of height" you should have interpreted
correctly.
>> What you see is either 0 when `tool-bar-mode' is turned off or 2
>> which probably comes from the actual toolbar pixel height divided
>> by the frame's default line height.
>
> What it really comes from should be *specified* in the manual.
Patches welcome. Likely from someone who (1) uses toolbars and (2) on
most relevant platforms.
> IOW, what is the default number?
One as stated.
> Otherwise, it is pretty reasonable
> to assume (as I did) that the default is one. Whether reasonable or
> not, users should not need to guess the default behavior for the
> on state.
>
> And see above. The manual in fact DOES say what the default is,
> and it is not 2.
2 is not the default. It's calculated from the font height you or your
system uses.
> Is the manual wrong here or is the implementation
> bugged in this regard?
Your bug report is bugged.
> So if the behavior is as it is intended to be, then the doc is
> inadequate. It does not describe the behavior. And what it does
> suggest (i.e., by default, setting `tool-bar-lines' would do just
> what the `tool-bar-lines' doc says: change the number of tool bar
> lines) is something quite different from the actual behavior.
If you want to submit a patch, please do. I only asked you to not use
the term "wrong" without consulting the manual first. I read your
report and the manual and found the manual right and your report wrong.
martin