On 22-09-25 06:03PM, Omar Polo wrote:
> On 2022/09/26 01:23:47 +1000, Mark Jamsek <mark@jamsek.com> wrote:
> > On 22-09-24 03:17PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > > Mark Jamsek:
> > > 
> > > > This fixes the problem stsp reported of making utf8 enabled editors
> > > > necessary to browse the code.
> > > > 
> > > > I also found prettier single guillemets to wrap the control chars.
> > > 
> > > What are the chances of a font not containing those characters and
> > > presenting the user with some replacement box?
> > 
> > I'm not sure how to get a reliable measure on that, tbh, but will
> > investigate further. According to stsp, gnome and xfce support it out of
> > the box, I'll learn which other desktop environments also support it by
> > default. I can't recall if base xterm did.
> 
> The default bitmap font used by xterm in base has the left/right
> guillemet characters in it, so as soon as one defines LANG (before
> spawning xterm) it just works.  (I know because I really like that
> bitmap font and happen to use it also for Emacs.)

That's good to know. My opinion is if it works with base--it's kosher,
but...

> 
> > > Why not simply use <...> everywhere?
> 
> However I kind of agree with this, they have the same width and are
> known to work everywhere.

I'm not going to object if naddy feels strongly enough about it
and am more than happy if he wants it changed to <> :)

-- 
Mark Jamsek <fnc.bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68