(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #0)
> I believe the minimum height can be ~435.

Agree with this value, more or less. We decided to make dialogs non-resizable, and actually there is no reason to scale the large white-space in this dialog.

Setting with/height is an easyhack, no need to dig into it.

I don't consider this to be a bug that needs fixing, not in the form as specified here.

Double-click on any function that needs more than 2 arguments (some financial functions work well in this regard, e.g. AMORDEGRC needs 7 arguments) -- suddenly the white space on the right is filled with relevant content and you'll have hard time fitting it into the size proposed.

So you'd end up forcing users that want to use those function to make 1 extra step and resize the dialog. 

There *are* issues the function wizard e.g. when resized, window size is not remembered, or the box with text entries for function arguments doesn't expand etc. But none of those issues happens to be "dialog is too large"

Created attachment 130763 [details]
Screenshot from master

Maybe we talk about different version, need to check again as it looks acceptable on Windows (while AMORDEGRC still has a lot of free space). But the resizable flag violates our guidelines. Dialogs must not be resizable.

Version: 5.4.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: fa2eb4b43fc872c171129d477cfabe9fa29d78ce
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2017-01-18_01:17:32
Locale: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group

> Maybe we talk about different version, need to check again as it looks
> acceptable on Windows (while AMORDEGRC still has a lot of free space). But
> the resizable flag violates our guidelines. Dialogs must not be resizable.

And now actually do *double-click* on the list item -- you'll see a scrollable box with at least 4 new text entries appearing to the right of the function list

Given the presence of text entries, or editable fields in general, it does make some sense for the dialog to be resizable and it's even in accordance with UX guidelines

(In reply to Katarina Behrens (CIB) from comment #4)
> And now actually do *double-click* on the list item ...

OMG

> Given the presence of text entries, or editable fields in general, it does
> make some sense for the dialog to be resizable and it's even in accordance
> with UX guidelines

Accepted. I'd still make it non-resizable since the input fields are not anchored. Even better if we'd make all dialogs resizable and take care about the proper alignment (personal opinion).

Created attachment 130849 [details]
function wizard wasted space

Even with double-clicking on a function, there is alot of wasted space in the dialog, which isnt there in earlier releases.

Also most functions take 1, 2 or 3 arguments, but we allocate a minimum of 4 rows for arguments, and stretching the height of the dialog doesnt show more arguments, so where is the benefit of the resizing.

(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #6)
> Created attachment 130849 [details]
> function wizard wasted space
Note that space of the upper red box may be used by function parameter descriptions, which can be much longer than in the screenshot example, specifically when translated, eg. to Finnish..
For example take a look at the POISSON function the third Cumulative parameter.

The space of the lower red box indeed seems to be unused (or I didn't find what for).

Benefit of resizing can be overview of the Structure page for more complicated formula expressions. Would be nice though if the width of that left pane could also be resized..

(In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #7)
> Would be nice though if the width of that
> left pane could also be resized..
For which bug 101876 exists already.

looking at the comments, and noticing the dialog fits my 1366x768 screen, let's close this as NotABug