RE: Emacs geometry

[Drew Adams]

    >     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.

The random-positioning behavior is bad, and it didn't occur before. I call
that a bug.

    > 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.

OK, so it's a design change. It's a bad design, and we never discussed it.

    > 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.

Remembering where the user positioned an app last time, and using that
position next time (if no position is specified), is much better. A user
will appreciate that (and find it normal). No need to fiddle with
default-frame-alist or the registry: just position the frame where you want
it, and exit. That's pretty common on Windows.

    > - 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.

Well, let's see. How about having a random background color, and applying
the same argument: "Only if you care about background color. I don't see why
you must." Or, we could suddenly use a random font for the default: "Only if
you care about the font. I don't see why you must."

I must. No, you don't see why. Too bad.

    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.

We're talking about the first frame only here, no? Default positioning of
subsequent frames would presumably be governed by a cascading scheme of some
sort - I proposed using the IE cascade model. In any case, this is about
positioning the first frame.

    > 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.

So take out this feature, which was never discussed here, and we'll discuss
it for possible adoption after the release. If a half-baked feature is added
at the last minute, with no discussion, then it should either be fully baked
or backed out.

No, I don't consider discussion on emacs-pretest to be a substitute for
discussion here. This is a new feature, a new UI design. It changes
long-standing Emacs behavior, going back to the first Windows
implementation, AFAIK.

    > 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.

Ah, the old "you're the only one" argument, again. As you've seen before,
its persuasive power lasts only until the next person chimes in... Enjoy the
moment. Actually, two of us complained independently about this already; we
each reported it as a bug.

If you think my choice of default position is only individual, and does not
represent what most Windows users would expect as a default, then choose
another default position - as long as it is *constant* (so, consistent). I
can (and I already do) adjust my own setup - I'm not reasoning for my own
needs here, but for those of most Windows users.

It's the lack of a consistent default position that I'm arguing against.

I argued for 0,0 as the best default position, but you may have an argument
for a better position. What is it?

    > 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.

No, sorry, I don't know how. My only experience of Windows is as a user. I
don't care so much about the cascading scheme. Someone else mentioned first
that it goes down, down, down. If we can do better, fine, but I can live
with down, down, down.