From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bidi reordering engine upgraded Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:25:54 +0300 Message-ID: <8338an2jcd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834mv55quj.fsf@gnu.org> <543E9122.6070605@yandex.ru> <8338ap5o7l.fsf@gnu.org> <543E9A1C.2010904@yandex.ru> <831tq95m6x.fsf@gnu.org> <83zjcx450f.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4sh43zq.fsf@gnu.org> <543F41C9.3000507@yandex.ru> <83oatc4gz3.fsf@gnu.org> <877g005p11.fsf@zigzag.favinet> <83egu848xv.fsf@gnu.org> <8738ao5emi.fsf@zigzag.favinet> <8361fk3yxc.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4sf45hj.fsf@zigzag.favinet> <838ukf2pcq.fsf@gnu.org> <87tx333zjt.fsf@zigzag.favinet> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413534391 17440 80.91.229.3 (17 Oct 2014 08:26:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:26:31 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 17 10:26:24 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf2re-0001vK-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:26:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58560 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf2re-0005bo-At for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:26:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59192) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf2rM-0005ar-Ls for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:26:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf2rF-0000FR-NK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:26:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:38521) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf2rF-0000F6-Eg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:25:57 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDK00B00XSNOR00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:25:56 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDK00BLCY37E360@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:25:56 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87tx333zjt.fsf@zigzag.favinet> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:175509 Archived-At: > From: Thien-Thi Nguyen > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:50:30 +0200 > > > [1:text/plain Hide] > > () Eli Zaretskii > () Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:16:05 +0300 > > > Left-most pixel is numbered 0, and "at 0" > > refers to that pixel. > > But with that model, a 1-pixel line "at 0" > does NOT "invade" on pixel 1. > > Granted (if i take "1-pixel" to mean the length of > the line, and not its "line width" (a measure > orthogonal to the line's orientation), which is > what i normally understand "1-pixel line" to mean), > but a foo-pixel line "from X to X+W"[0] renders X, > X+1, X+2 ... X+W, for a total count of W+1 pixels. > OBOE! The invading pixel is not X+1, but X+W. But there are W+1 pixels in a line that starts at X and ends at X+W. W+1, not W. > > | 1 2 3 > | 012345678901234567890123456789 > | *********** > | ^ out out damned dot! Count the stars, and you will see there are 11 of them, not 10. Where did the 11th one come from, when we requested a width of 10? > decide first what we would like to see as the > hollow cursor for a glyph that is 1-pixel wide. > > Perhaps "hollow" in the vertical sense only could be > expressed as two pixels, one at top, one at bottom. > That's almost invisible, though; maybe two or three > at top and two at bottom is better. Why not just a single-pixel vertical line instead?