[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer
From: |
Lennart Borgman |
Subject: |
bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:15:25 +0200 |
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:
>> I believe fit-window-to-buffer has become a bit upset and unnecessary
>> aggressive because of visual lines. It looks like it need a bit more
>> feedback from the display system to be really sure that the buffer is
>> entirely visible.
>>
>> The attached patch is something I have used to get around the problem.
>> I am not sure it is the right thing but I am rather sure it does not
>> hurt.
>
> IIUC your change defeats the whole point of `pos-visible-in-window-p',
> namely to calculate a position without doing a redisplay.
Yes, I know. I hoped someone had a better idea long term idea. Doing a
redisplay is just a quick fix.
What I saw was the even 2 lines high buffer made fit-window-to-buffer
delete sibling windows. All the time - but... I thought I knew how to
reproduce it. So I did not write any test procedures, I was just a bit
irritated. A mistake.
> Worse even,
> you might end up doing multiple redisplays within a loop.
Yes, I know. Maybe the first redisplay was all that was needed.
> TRT would be to handle the various line cases within `pos_visible_p'.
Thanks, I will leave this for the moment, but keep it in mind.
> And obviously get rid of resizing windows within a loop.
>
>> Of course we need a non-killing version of fit-window-to-buffer, but
>> for the moment this patch might be useful.
>
> What is a "non-killing version of fit-window-to-buffer"?
This function killed all other siblings even if it just actually needs
two lines if certain conditions are met. (Those I tried to describe.)
So this was just a desperate attempt to stop that. I do not know what
to do at the moment. I will try to reproduce this and look a bit
closer at it later.
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Lennart Borgman, 2010/06/09
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/11
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer,
Lennart Borgman <=
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/12
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Lennart Borgman, 2010/06/12
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/12
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Lennart Borgman, 2010/06/12
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/13
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Lennart Borgman, 2010/06/13
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Drew Adams, 2010/06/12
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/13
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, Drew Adams, 2010/06/13
- bug#6385: A slightly less aggressive fit-window-to-buffer, martin rudalics, 2010/06/13