>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:49:03 +0000, David Reitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said:
>> OK, how about this? x-display-mm-{width,height} are changed so as >> to keep the dpi values of the main display. > Sure, that would make it a bit more consistent. However, the -mm- > functions weren't really my concern. I've heard that preview-latex uses these functions to display images in real size. > Placing frames is a difficult thing if one doesn't know what the > available screen area is (screen as in total screen, not in the X > sense). > What complicates matters is that multiple monitors may be arranged > so that the total desktop area is not rectangular. Just having > information about total width and height won't be enough. (And I > presume that is not a Mac only issue.) Yes. Xinerama also supports such configurations. > Can the notion of "display" (X) approximate each monitor? In a > situation with two monitors, one could have x-display-list return > three displays: a main one ("Mac"), and then "1" and "2" or so for > the other two, separately. Then, x-display-mm/pixel-width/height > could either return the dimensions of the total area, or of only one > of the screens. According to the manual page of X, "the phrase `display' is usually used to refer to collection of monitors that share a common keyboard and pointer (mouse, tablet, etc.)." In that sense, there's only one "display" on a Mac regardless of the number of monitors. "Display" and "screen" are established terms in X11, and I think we should not abuse them. As I mentioned earlier, the concept you want has another name "framebuffer" in the X11 (Xinerama) world, and I think the right thing is to support them in a consistent way on the relevant platforms. YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug