[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: |
Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:03:22 +0200 |
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:
>> 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.
> [...]
>> 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.
>
> Deleting other windows when resizing was a misguided feature. I don't
> do that any more for quite some time and didn't miss it yet ;-)
Did you rewrite fit-window-to-buffer or do you have another function for this?
> In any case, the issue whether a position is visible in a window is a
> priori not related to the issue whether resizing is allowed to delete
> any windows. You patch might handle a few cases, accidentally ...
Yes, but what it handled was that it prevented a window to grow over
the buffers size.
But I do not know why the window grow bigger than the buffer. It is
just that after it happened to me ten times or so I throw in this
quick fix - and hoped that you had something more to say about it. If
I just had calmed down a bit and investigated it instead... ;-)
- 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, 2010/06/11
- 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 <=
- 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
- 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, martin rudalics, 2010/06/13