Re: Tick Reduction

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Sorry, I'm now confused.  You say the width of "L" will not be changed
> and the width of digits doesn't need to be changed?  Then why are we
> doing all this, if there will be no change?

The column/line specs use spaces to fill out (I think it defaults to
three char positions for the L spec?), and it's really only these that
will be affected by the monospaciation (in that spec).

> (And btw, displaying "L" normally while "1234" not normally is quite a
> lot more difficult than handling all characters the same, because the
> display code generally doesn't distinguish between characters.  Unless
> you make "L" that "default character" whose advance width is used for
> all the other characters, that is.  But if you do that, then what
> about "C" in the column number?)

The L won't be displayed normally either, but like the numbers, the L
won't be affected, because it's also as wide or wider than the "normal
font width" (i.e., font->average_width).

>> First line without monospacification, second line with:
>
> For the "U:---" part, each dash character is a separate field, so what
> are the benefits of using proportional fonts there?

Because mixing fonts here makes things look weird.

> For the line/column number, I don't see any significant difference,
> barely a pixel here and there.  So I wonder what is this all about.

With this font (as with most fonts), the displays of the line/column
numbers should be identical.  (Except for the spaces.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no