[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Testing redisplay code in batch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Testing redisplay code in batch |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:31:05 +0300 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 19:16:01 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>
> This means: with this patch, the xdisp-tests.el succeeds or not in batch
> mode depending on whether the resize_mini_window patch has been applied!
>
> Yay!
>
> WDYT?
Thanks. I have a couple of minor comments:
> + if (FRAME_INITIAL_P (f))
> + paused_p = false; /* No actual display to update! */
I'd appreciate a comment here saying why setting paused_p to false is
the consequence of "no display to update".
> - /* 10 is arbitrary,
> + /* 80/40 is arbitrary,
Why not 80x25? Those are the standard dimensions of old TTYs, so 25
sounds more natural to me than 40.
> @@ -1136,6 +1136,7 @@ make_initial_frame (void)
> init_frame_faces (f);
>
> last_nonminibuf_frame = f;
> + echo_area_window = f->minibuffer_window;
Why is this bit needed?
> - move_it_by_lines (&it, 0);
> + move_it_by_lines (&it, 0); /* bug#43519 */
This is unrelated (and unneeded, IMO).
> @@ -15414,8 +15414,8 @@ redisplay_internal (void)
> /* No redisplay if running in batch mode or frame is not yet fully
> initialized, or redisplay is explicitly turned off by setting
> Vinhibit_redisplay. */
> - if (FRAME_INITIAL_P (SELECTED_FRAME ())
> - || !NILP (Vinhibit_redisplay))
> + if (/* FRAME_INITIAL_P (SELECTED_FRAME ())
> + * || */ !NILP (Vinhibit_redisplay))
> return;
This should be done cleaner, and should also update the commentary.
How about a small NEWS item about this?
Re: Testing redisplay code in batch, Alan Mackenzie, 2020/09/23
Re: Testing redisplay code in batch, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/09/23