Index | Thread
Download raw body.
On 22-09-25 06:03PM, Omar Polo wrote: > On 2022/09/26 01:23:47 +1000, Mark Jamsek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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