Re: How to get the new frame?

[B. T. Raven]

Thanks, Eli and Javier. See below

On 7/23/2015 2:26 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: "B. T. Raven" <btraven@nihilo.net>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:21:52 -0500
> >
> > > Is display-monitor-attributes-list what you want?  Or maybe
> > > display-mm-width and display-mm-height?  Or display-pixel-width and
> > > display-pixel-height?  There are more, of course.
> >
> > Thanks, Eli. I have the last four functions documented but not the first
> > (variable?) in w32 24.3.
>
> Upgrade to 24.5, the latest, and you will have the first function as
> well.
>
> > I have put:
> >
> >    '(display-mm-dimensions-alist (quote (("t400" 304 . 190))))
> >
> > in (custom-set-variables using custom but that doesn't register the
> > display monitor (14.1" diag.).
>
> I don't understand what that means, nor what you wanted to achieve,
> and how exactly did you try achieving that via
> display-mm-dimensions-alist.  Please show more of your code.
>
> > Apparently the display part of the alist can be either nil, t, or a
> > string but I can't get mm or pixel height or width through those
> > functions after setting up the alist.
>
> Again, I fail to follow.  Where I'm typing this, I get
>
>    M-: (display-mm-height) RET => 180

after trying to customize I see:

display-mm-dimensions-alist is a variable defined in `frame.el'.
Its value is (("t400" 304 . 190))
Original value was nil

then

(display-mm-width "t400") evals to Display name does not exist
(display-mm-width) evals to 508
(display-mm-height) evals to 318

but both numbers are more than 50% too big for the size of the physical 
screen in mm (304 by 190)

> What doesn't work for you?  Was this the function you tried?
>
> > Btw, what is this first string in the documentation of the variable:
> > (":0.0" . (287 . 215))?
>
> The display name, only significant on X.
>
> > I was hoping that Emacs might be able to interrogate the hardware
> > somehow through the OS.
>
> It does.
>
> > In the context of my original question, is my goal somehow
> > achievable.  If so, what's the recipe?
>
> Not sure what is the question, exactly.  You said back then:
>
> > I use 2 frames under w32, w64, courier (monospace 8 line high) to
> > display *Calendar* and arial (proportional font) for everything else. Is
> > there any other way to accomplish this?
>
> Other than what? other than using a separate frame?  Then I suggest to
> have a look at buffer-face-mode and its commands.  That's what is at
> work when you click Shift-mouse-1 and select a font for the current
> buffer.

I think I always use only two fonts (same size). I knew about 
buffer-face-mode but I don't use it. Instead I tried to set up two 
frames and their associated fonts once and for all in the init file.

As far as I know the only code that affects all this are these lines:

"
(setq initial-frame-alist '((name . "arial") (top . 370) (left . 1) 
(width . 205) (height . 18)))

...

(make-frame '((name . "courier")
   (top . 1) (left . 1)
   (width . 223) (height . 18)
   (visibility . icon))) ;; nil or icon

...

(custom-set-faces
 ;; custom-set-faces was added by Custom.
 ;; If you edit it by hand, you could mess it up, so be careful.
 ;; Your init file should contain only one such instance.
 ;; If there is more than one, they won't work right.
 '(default ((t (:stipple nil :background "ghostwhite" :foreground 
"black" :inverse-video nil :box nil :strike-through nil :overline nil 
:underline nil :slant normal :weight normal :height 108 :width normal 
:family "outline-arial unicode ms"))))
 '(scroll-bar ((t (:background "#ffffff" :foreground "#000000")))))

... and finally

(select-frame-by-name "courier")
(set-frame-font "-outline-Courier 
New-normal-r-normal-normal-*-*-96-96-c-*-iso10646-1")

;; the actual (present) width and height numbers are now just a vestige 
of my experimenting with the two frames long time ago, dividing the 
display in half roughly). What I want are two full width frames, an 8 
line monospace-font frame for *Calendar* and a 24 line proportional-font 
frame both on the display at once. Now I can only do that by fiddling 
with the frames manually.

Thanks,

Ed