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 20:15:38 +0200 Message-ID: <83k0h1qss5.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> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20492"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 21 19:16:33 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 1morOD-00059g-F8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:16:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33544 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1morOC-0005O5-BJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 13:16:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1morNG-0004XN-1V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 13:15:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=58760 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 1morNF-0008RV-KO; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 13:15:33 -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=8YfPxfS4DlFLvvYu5Ec2Y78qxXKcSlWMhmSVrven3mI=; b=md1c3XeJvFP3 DPiNdSCx1fgro75C98Vu3tfwekTSZOyW3VkTF8tLmJ13BEVUoXAkPnZPcF3k9+O2uUuIp2q9wzRgw vefb93ghZxy02dy7FGiSXfH6vrwDDZUOkNBjpIt77r1BCj+q66waVCdsl5qFVZgWdGib2S/D9pTrF No/HVCBElIcaoUuQIZh8YIwGVkslD+RU52JwifOh0lcTyxZd1Vnxrx3RljKbmykzOA1Pbe3zaq92g 49olBggPN1OkRzgOh5IZqQF6npCN9T1kz6E7obiASKMFjgot6xthDJSm3jGHEgU7+zey/NeO4NZOy 6MNbEgJ6dArdnb++mqysSA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4779 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 1morNF-0004nq-9O; Sun, 21 Nov 2021 13:15:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <877dd1mlsd.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:00:18 +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:279869 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, stefankangas@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:00:18 +0100 > > The "L" wouldn't be monospacified here -- only the digits. And in the > vast majority of fonts, the digits are the width we're aiming for, at > least as far as I can see, so it will visually be no change. > > (Monospeciation of the numbers is basically not necessary unless you > have a very odd font -- virtually all proportional fonts do not have > proportional widths for the digits.) 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? (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?) > 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? 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. I'm probably missing something important.