Re: Minimum frame size in Windows

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 12/12/06, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:

> My point was that you spoke of "size", not "height", and I naturally assumed 
> that you meant width as well as height.

I mean it.

> You said that you wanted to avoid users resizing the frame to a
> fraction of the (size of the) "window caption".

No, I *didn't*. I talked about respecting the tracking size, and then
I put the current behavior as an example of the result of not
respecting it. I've never said: "let's force the frame to be no
smaller than the caption, or the caption's title." I've said (quite a
few times already): "let's force the frame to respect the tracking
size".

> in particular, the width of the window caption.

I get the impression you interpret "window caption" as the title text
of the window. I'm referring to the UI element consisting of an small
icon, a title (totally or partially visible) and minimize, maximize
and close buttons (in the window style used by Emacs).

> I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you won't change
> the minimum width or that the new minimum width ("size") would
> depend on the current window caption? I don't want a frame with
> a long title to have a different minimum width from one with a
> short title.

The length of the text in the caption is irrelevant for tracking size purposes.

> Dunno. What is the purpose of prohibiting it, beyond ugliness?

Consistency with other Windows apps. Pick a corner of your Explorer or
Firefox window, and drag it to reduce the window. You'll hit a wall.
Bingo! Welcome to the tracking size limit.

> Bof. Please elaborate, if it's really important.

Consistency is important. It can be skipped, if there's a reason.

> Apparently not in Emacs - your screenshot shows that.

No, my screenshot shows a bug. Read the code. In my patch I removed
lines that specifically talk about *respecting* the tracking size.

The current code does not intend to be agnostic respect to the frame
size; it does quite a few computations with it. Why aren't you
campaigning against the full-lines limitation? That Emacs currently
allows a window of half a caption's height is a bug.

> You already did that yourself with Emacs on Windows, to create
> the screenshot.

No, I grabbed one corner of the Emacs window (frame) and dragged it
(on an unpatched Emacs, of course) till it stopped.

> I don't pretend to do anything; I'm not suggesting changing
> anything. You are.

You pretend to keep a bug for some future, hypothetical use of the bug
as a feature.

> What's wrong with letting a user do what you did with your
> frame? What does it hurt?

Consistency of UI.

> No, and I never said it did. Why do you say "smaller"?

Because that, with the full caption instead of a fragment of it, it's
the default tracking size! And you're insistent of letting the user
create frames past down that limit!

> My point in mentioning my code was that if an application wants
> to impose a size limit, it can do so, possibly under user
> control, in Lisp.

I don't know how you could, from lisp, create a frame smaller than that.

> You haven't given any reason to hard-code a larger size in C.

If you would have taken a look at my code you'd seen there's no
hardcoded limit. GetSystemMetrics() returns the system defaults.

> If you had said from the beginning that you just wanted to show > the full 
> _height_ of the title bar, I wouldn't have replied at
> all.

Frankly, I get the impression you jumped to fight my patch without
even taking the time to understand what was I proposing and what was I
trying to fix.

                   /L/e/k/t/u