From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Buffers menu question Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:05:24 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87k7qq56a6.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020143376 2058 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2002 05:09:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 05:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, 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 172PtP-0000X5-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:09:35 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 172PxV-0002P5-00 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:13:49 +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 172PtA-0007GQ-00; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:09:20 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172Pqx-00079u-00; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:07:04 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA03691; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:05:24 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <87k7qq56a6.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> 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:3434 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3434 On 30 Apr 2002, Miles Bader wrote: > 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. Could we use the same characters, `*' and `%' respectively, but make them invisible? Like display them with the foreground identical to the background?