Re: Emacs geometry

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:56:59 -0700
> 
>     We could add code to record the last position in the registry, but I'd
>     postpone that to after the release.
> 
> Why wouldn't that bug be fixed before the release?

What bug?  Emacs never recorded the position in the registry, so what
you are asking for is a new feature, not a bugfix.

> It is a result of an incomplete bug fix (or incomplete feature
> addition).

If you mean the fact that the initial position is left to the window
manager, then it's _by_design_, it's not an omission, nor a bug.

> The current behavior (random?) is worse than what existed before

I disagree.  Other GUI applications, though not all, have this
behavior, and I don't find it annoying.  AFAIR, similar behaviors
exist on X with some window managers.

> - it
> *requires all* users to play with default-frame-alist or (worse!) to fiddle
> with the registry, just to have some control over frame positioning.

Only if you care about the position.  I don't see why you must.

Actually, with previous behavior, one would _always_ need to move
every frame but (perhaps) the first, because they all would overlap.
Now you don't need to do that.

> If the aim was to move to the way other Windows apps behave, and so avoid
> overlapping the task bar, then why not go all the way and do what the other
> apps do: remember the last-session position, and restore it?

Because we will never get a stable Emacs if we keep adding features.

> If I had to guess, I'd guess that 90% of Windows users leave the task bar in
> its default position, at the bottom of the screen. Of the remaining 10%, how
> many do you think put it at the top or the left of the screen? 1/3 = 3%?
> Those few users can specify the position they want, instead of depending on
> the default position - it is enough to position the frame once, and then
> start a new session (provided that bug is fixed).

This goes both ways--you are the only one who complained about the new
behavior, so by your logic we can just dismiss that as a miniscule
minority.

> Finally, you didn't speak to my suggestion for cascading, instead of down,
> down, down...

We don't tell Windows to move the position down, we just tell it to
use its own defaults.  If you, or someone else knows how to tell it to
cascade, please show the way, and we could consider that if it's not
too complicated.