From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#57693: 29.0.50; Is there a more reliable version of `char-displayable-p'? Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87v8pw1xyo.fsf@localhost> <83a678d5w6.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33416"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 57693@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 10 00:26:11 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRt-0008Ui-Fc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 00:26:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43864 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRs-0002Kr-8u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:26:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39612) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRm-0002KN-HS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47170) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRm-00006S-0V for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRl-00072C-SC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:26:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 22:26:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 57693 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 57693-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B57693.166276233627008 (code B ref 57693); Fri, 09 Sep 2022 22:26:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 57693) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Sep 2022 22:25:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35868 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRM-00071X-6n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:25:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oa1-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51]:46645) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oWmRJ-000715-PX for 57693@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:25:34 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-oa1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-12ab0eaa366so7512889fac.13 for <57693@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:25:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=xZUa2qjG5iIXVylqaRkXlJAdawa0FZ6h5NrZHzfHGso=; b=fWjKLdujXDpl6F4gy9XXQPjI+G3lI3ZcWfR9Y9ewZqUrBQhcndtHmAYDPaWaADoZXf yAWYioBR7bOUzb7AUL4qzhdQyeiSbPlKUhEmiEKNzGgnP6bjYVldOuEWejtqOeuhiiyM F3zNXZ0I018v18sHrXE6vfmCDV7PQs6pOmBvRO/waoqyXDDOLCeSNLd9PbYn/Y+Vj3vm SbRoBmv5KYepvO71QSwh921/7wu6FlQu5IXGjXWdG6skLZyAiD6eHay3NRGDbDVhAnmC JL1+iuAY+vurWCC4QLfHPfhHZ+dCUMmj2DEG1P86ro1TXyoEIX8Am1zGZ5tXnRZGUb3C b5mw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=xZUa2qjG5iIXVylqaRkXlJAdawa0FZ6h5NrZHzfHGso=; b=nGpKraSS9Zqy/s9dZJIExtvulZZqmd9fL7n7+s+BeacRXl/N+DG6JCsIoGlCsQTiLH KZlKCYuNRcTmS+6HG8MvS/qaAv3wKrz4SQI1g69vwgJS7bU2FwJKH2shcmwTp1QyAhFJ VogD52kRsN4AwZVo/RVqONV180gQSekhPwZ81x1W5kkAWnJOG6ngFff4ibpgvl2F67Yw 0aj4OR0AMzZbWlsKGRav15zcTA0GBXTgCAnUL7pkWQ4ACsKo8hY3E2DvKw35z29IfEzE mOOseJOqVzc41jrjCLqbyT6wsgKrOKKPthnvDS30C9nhcUMAqHcytHbpgtllwIaVPaBp 3cTw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2GNtQ0hWakrVgwKozEgZlMbOTC2+VvRNqCXq95fson38cDINOP gc8tmZpYNIA0AZzpHK0SBNPqrZEJLOqCqjtqCIE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4ufRosBLkopw4zgi8xwI1M8a4ww58KCftlNPbe4MJ+R7HqFElw6LYi3CA2sxv+xrbHT6bx9Poqxj1ecoDQCqI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:5581:b0:11e:300:8189 with SMTP id n1-20020a056870558100b0011e03008189mr6099677oao.199.1662762328106; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:25:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83a678d5w6.fsf@gnu.org> X-Hashcash: 1:20:220909:yantar92@gmail.com::Yv7nVz3+LcK4LLze:Dbgd X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:242041 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I'd need to know more details. Why did this test fail for that user? You can find the details here: https://lists.gnu.org/r/emacs-orgmode/2022-07/msg00402.html Alternative link to the same thread: https://list.orgmode.org/27918f90-4a82-9f70-611e-7fc5475e2e60@oracle.com/ > Also, what exactly does the test above intend to test? Are you > interested in whether this character can be displayed at all, > regardless of which font is to be used, or do you want it to be > displayed with the default face's font? The purpose of the test is to figure out if we should use the pretty UTF-8 characters or if we should use the less pretty ASCII ones. The result is then used in the org agenda buffer. So it had better display, basically. The problem is that some users saw that they got the UTF-8 characters with the above code, but they displayed as the "hex-squares" (I forget the official name). > To answer your question: the most accurate way is to actually try > displaying the character and see if that works. Not sure if it helps > you, though especially since that code is in a defcustom, AFAIU. That doesn't help here, unfortunately. :-( We would need a way to figure this out programmatically. (It's in a defcustom, yes.)