johnstiles (John Stiles) <phabrica...@mercurial-scm.org> writes: > johnstiles added a comment. > > > It all depends on your terminal font. It looks like the font you're using > now has issues with U+2506 ┆ and is otherwise working as expected.
Yeah, that was my fault. I forgot I had a different font for unicode symbols to fix a bug in powerline. Unfortunately, it still looks similar when I put everything to one font setting: they all look a tiny bit broken with the fonts I've tried. That list isn't large: Fira, DejuVu Sans (from earlier in this thread), and a random assortment of system fonts. Do you have any other fonts I could try? > Most likely it is rendering ┆ as full-width instead of narrow-width. I'm > almost positive this issue is fixable if you are willing to experiment with a > different font or Terminal settings, because I've never seen that particular > artifact. Usually it's been the circle glyphs that want to render over-wide. > :) > > If you are willing to experiment with it, there are a bunch of very similar > glyphs that we could swap out and use instead if you think it would help the > general case. (https://unicode-search.net/unicode-namesearch.pl?term=DASH) > I'm certainly willing to explore it, but it would help to know a little more > detail about your current setup (Terminal? Font? OS?) to see if I can repro > the issue locally and see whether this would actually be widespread. > > Broader picture: on the whole I think we can pick a really good starting > point that works for the vast majority of users' setups, but we are unlikely > to land on a 100% solution for all fonts and terminals. Some fonts just look > bad or won't align perfectly. Some layouts will still have little gaps in > them where Unicode doesn't provide the box characters we need for a perfect > layout. On the other hand, the existing ASCII mode looks unaligned and goofy > on all machines all of the time, so having an optional mode that looks better > for most users is still a step in the right direction :) Agreed. Maybe would could put some font suggestions in the help? (I don't mean amending this patch, by the way, just asking in general). > Additional thoughts: I would love to add features to this patch, such as > glyph customizability or even color coding. I can certainly get it done in a > followup. On the other hand, I don't want to sink tons of free time into the > process it if I can't get this simple version through review. This is a > spare-time project for me and I don't need to add flexibility options if it's > only ever going to exist on my PC. I'd like to at least get a foothold in, > then work on improvements once this has landed, instead of working for weeks > just to risk having the feature rejected at the end of the process and having > nothing to show for it. Oh, yeah, I totally agree. Apologies for the back-and-forth on this. Lemme play around with some fonts and whatnot after you get back on some suggestions, and then let's try to get this landed :-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
