From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Buffers menu question Date: 30 Apr 2002 10:22:57 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87k7qq56a6.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> References: <871yd6cw8q.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <200204241755.g3OHtgQ03421@aztec.santafe.edu> <1190-Fri26Apr2002143254+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <87adrqzlk9.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <5137-Fri26Apr2002193932+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <87y9faxb7e.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <200204282116.g3SLGTG05837@aztec.santafe.edu> <874rhv4f4a.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <200204291840.g3TIeJ606392@aztec.santafe.edu> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020131161 18622 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2002 01:46:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@is.elta.co.il, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 172MiP-0004q1-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:46:01 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 172MmQ-0006Dy-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:50:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172Mhy-0006Cp-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:45:34 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp01.fields.gol.com ([203.216.5.131]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172MhB-00068D-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from tc-2-241.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp ([203.216.25.241] helo=tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp) by smtp01.fields.gol.com with esmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 172Mh8-00035g-00; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:44:42 +0900 Original-Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9CFCB3071; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:22:57 +0900 (JST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <200204291840.g3TIeJ606392@aztec.santafe.edu> Original-Lines: 25 X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3430 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3430 Richard Stallman writes: > Whether * and % have the same width would be relevant > if the idea were to use * and % as alternatives in one column. > However, actually they are used independently. So the question > is whether we can find an alternative to * that has the same width > (in common fonts) as *, and an alternative to % that has the same width > (in common fonts) as %. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Usually, one displays either `*' or SPC, followed by `%' or SPC, and the problem that the widths of `*' and `%' are radically different from that of SPC. If you could use something besides SPC that was visually undistracting enough to not be a problem, you could use that as alternative to the SPC character. However, it seems certain that you couldn't use the _same_ character as the `SPC alternative' for both `*' and '%' (the width `*' often seems to be quite narrow, whereas the width of `%' is often very wide), so this might lead to having a very confusing jumble of cryptic-looking characters... Do you have any ideas of possible characters? -Miles -- "1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"