Re: Display of undisplayable characters: \U01F3A8 instead of diamond

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Gregory Heytings wrote:

>> I don't see any failure. Richard's complaint was that
>> characters without glyphs were getting displayed as long
>> hex strings rather than the "diamond" that they were
>> previously displayed as. I think the complaint has merit.
>> It seems to me to be a classic case for a user option.
>
> You forget to mention that the context in which this bug was
> fixed in January is that RMS complained that ligatures such
> as "fi" showed up as a diamond [...] At that time what he
> wanted is that Emacs would automatically replace such
> ligatures by two letters in his Linux console, and that's
> what he got: Eli improved the latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx
> function in fd42ba3adb. At that time diamonds were
> considered "unhelpful", and he said for example: "I doubt
> any user wants to see a diamond instead of `fi'."
>
> During that discussion, the bug that is now objected against
> was also fixed, by 10c680551e.
>
> I, too, doubt any user wants to see a diamond instead of an
> actual character! Why are these diamonds suddenly useful
> again? How comes that a proposed solution with which
> ligatures such as "fi" are actually displayed as "fi", with
> which UTF-8 is actually supported instead of having to
> resort to ugly hacks such as latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx,
> and with which missing glyphs are in fact again displayed
> with these same diamonds, is criticized?

Guys, we are not fighting a holy war over in what order to
make the Sign of the Cross here, right?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal