From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tick Reduction Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:07:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83czmtqnl7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bl2hyzca.fsf@gnus.org> <8735nszpdv.fsf@gnus.org> <87sfvswrp8.fsf@gnus.org> <834k88woaj.fsf@gnu.org> <878rxkv980.fsf@gnus.org> <87sfvpmtl8.fsf@gnus.org> <83pmqtqvj5.fsf@gnu.org> <87bl2dmnfa.fsf@gnus.org> <83mtlxquh7.fsf@gnu.org> <877dd1mlsd.fsf@gnus.org> <83k0h1qss5.fsf@gnu.org> <8735npmkm5.fsf@gnus.org> <83h7c5qpag.fsf@gnu.org> <87czmtl2uv.fsf@gnus.org> <83fsrpqog1.fsf@gnu.org> <87wnl1jnfa.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35584"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 21 21:09:01 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1mot93-00091K-62 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 21:09:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59882 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mot91-00083J-0o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 15:08:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mot7r-0007Js-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 15:07:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=33372 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mot7o-0002qu-UO; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 15:07:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=YnwkgeEK6ztMCgTj0hnyFncGh6GJ9R3BFrV8x9JiKbY=; b=LxE+38+pj3iI xVdg+w1A9+7zKfesoGkbZIMaWsC2lmLZIObxcjCEgIKYWQcp2MNPPF+KaTmGJFpxMYVXFUQvAnPFl t6LTTmk9AR3XiqGGBwLY9KMoTkUDcxIv4DoaCirds/ciDoFc1Ycjn3gw4LNA76T1vlvLXx9j/dhFa Jnd79aM6mJutyKD8TiRqxPFPIpl9CVfPKJ6OjQWrOVlZkaxLWwyFxy0J3qdjVXb8W1783w5qYqntj t5iV3BfyZOhnc87PuPLHKlQUTXk+1Xdd9Sv2MbPs+boK8if7i+F2wpq2IvQIdt4v/w/XbcRkIuseU YbMGHpxNeAVUkN8SBLj3GQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=3696 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mot7m-0006oC-Lh; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 15:07:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87wnl1jnfa.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 20:53:13 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:279882 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 20:53:13 +0100 > > > -\**- *mail* Bot L30 (Mail Fly/en Abbrev Fill) 9:41PM 0.08 [100%] > > > > So the "-\**" part, the Top/nn%/Bot part, the L30 part, the 9:41PM > > part, the 0.08 part, and the [100%] part will have to use the fixed > > advance width? > > No, the last three parts change widths today? They are numbers, so they can change the width because different digits have different width. > (The digits are, as I said, not an issue -- it's just exchanging > digits with other characters, like spaces.) I'm not sure this assumption is always true. I've seen fonts where "1" is much narrower than other digits. And the [100%] part is produced in my case with the [%b%p%%] format, so it can change the width, AFAIU. > > Btw, I still don't think I understand why aligning each field to a > > certain pixel value would not look better (and be easier to > > implement). > > I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you explain and give an > example? I've shown different fields for the mode line below: -\**- *mail* Bot L30 (Mail Fly/en Abbrev Fill) 9:41PM 0.08 [100%] +++++ +----------+ +-+ +-+ +-----------------------+ +----+ +--+ +----+ A single + means a field of 1 character cell; a +---+ means a field that starts and ends at the +. The idea is that each field always starts at a predefined pixel offset from the beginning of the mode line. The each field can change its width, but it will not affect the following fields.