On 05/08/10 23:15, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Boyko Bantchev wrote:
On 4 August 2010 20:15, Bram Moolenaar<[email protected]> wrote:
...
Please report every problem you find! =A0The 7.3 release should not
contain a problem because you didn't report it.
...
Well, I did point out to two bugs earlier, and they are still
present in 7.3d.
1. Function input()'s echo is broken. If one executes, e.g.
:while 1 | let s = input('') | echo "\n" | endw
one would expect to see a succession of strings that he enters.
Instead, we are left with nothing but empty lines.
This bug seems to be very old, and seriously hampers writing
interactive vimscriptlets.
Try this:
:while 1 | let s = input('') | echo s "\n" | endw
Not sure this is a bug. If someone wants to erase the typed text this
would work now but not when making it work the way you suggest.
2. Under Linux + GTK, all Unicode characters combined-accented with
U+0300, U+0301, ... (any of those) are incorrectly displayed:
the accent is either (mis)placed above the character on the left,
or is not displayed at all.
This seems to have originated with Vim 7.2.
I see this too. I can fix it with this change:
--- a/gui_gtk_x11.c 2010-07-25 15:48:22.000000000 +0200
+++ b/gui_gtk_x11.c 2010-08-05 23:09:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -5108,10 +5108,11 @@
/* There is a previous glyph, so we deal with combining
* characters the canonical way. That is, setting the
- * width of the previous glyph to 0. */
+ * width of the previous glyph to 0 and set the x_offset
+ * to puth the accent glyph in the middle. */
glyphs->glyphs[i - 1].geometry.width = 0;
width = cells * gui.char_width * PANGO_SCALE;
- glyph->geometry.x_offset +=
+ glyph->geometry.x_offset =
MAX(0, width - cluster_width) / 2;
#if 0
/* Dirty hack: for "monospace 13" font there is a bug that
But that might break it for others...
After applying this patch (changeset 2070b63605a7 dated 2010-08-07
15:46:45 +0200), my gvim display is worse than before.
I'm using Bitstream Vera Sans Mono 8 in gvim (Huge) +gui_gtk2 +gui_gnome
and currently I'm editing a Russian dictionary, with many combining
acute accents (U+0301) over Cyrillic vowels.
Before the patch, the accents came beautifully over the concerned
vowels. After the patch, the accent is displayed too much to the right,
between the concerned vowel and the next letter. This resembles what I
get with Times New Roman in the Mozilla SeaMonkey browser; it is not as
bad, though, as what I see with "monospace" (not sure which font this
brings) in the SeaMonkey mailer, where the accent is squarely over the
next letter, one character width to the right of where it ought to be.
So I suspect that this is a font-related problem. Boyko, what 'guifont'
are you using?
Bram, is it possible to know the width of the glyph, in order not to
move it so far to the right that it overshoots the next character? Also,
what will happen in Arabic, where it is common (at least in Koranic
Arabic) to have two combining characters over a single spacing letter?
For instance: in the formula, "to the name of God the Benevolent the
Merciful", bismillâh ar-rahmân ar-rahîm,
ب٠سْم٠ٱللّٰه٠ٱلرَّØْمٰن٠ٱلرَّØ٠يم٠؛
in the last (leftmost) two words (of four), the third consonant (which
goes down below the line and is not joined to the next one to its left)
has two combining signs, making it in both cases rah + shadda + fatha,
U+0631 + U+0651 + U+064E
I'm attaching an "Arabic testcase" file which displays horribly in this
new Vim changeset. Use ":setlocal arabic" to display the Arabic text RTL
as it should be, then compare lines 87-92 (in vocalized Arabic) with
lines 94-99 (the same text without the combining characters). You should
see the same consonants, just without the combining marks (the
"harakaat" as they're called in Arabic) but that's not what I see. Some
letters move about, others disappear completely, moving the cursor over
the text makes the letters go left or right... (The unvocalized part,
lines 94-99, is displayed correctly.)
Since this testcase is HTML, you can also view it in a browser; however
even browsers may display the consonants differently because when there
exists a digram or a trigram to make some letter-combinations "nicer",
the browser may not recognise it if there is a combining mark in the
middle. This, however, should not affect Vim, which pays no attention to
polygrams other than lam+alif.
