Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes: >>> I think this should be considered a bug, since the glyph used (LEFTWARDS >>> TRIANGLE-HEADED ARROW / #2b60) is not present in most fonts.
If that is true (I don't know) then maybe we should just use a more ubiquitous glyph? > The commit is supposed to fall back to ASCII symbol if the Unicode > variant is not available, but apparently the check failed for some > reason: [...] > Stefan, do you have any idea what can go wrong here? > > The only thing I can think about is warning in the char-displayable-p > docstring: > > >> On a multi-font display, the test is only whether there is an > >> appropriate font from the selected frame's fontset to display > >> CHAR's charset in general. Since fonts may be specified on a > >> per-character basis, this may not be accurate. I don't think we specify a particular font here, do we? So it seems like there might be a bug in Emacs here? I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but I would probably 'M-x report-emacs-bug' to find out why 'char-displayable-p' would say that a character is displayable when it's not.
