> On Apr 22, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Yuan Fu >> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:19:16 -0400 >> Cc: chad , >> Clément Pit-Claudel , >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >>>> I wonder if it’s even worthwhile having a bitmap for this. These days, it could as well be any of ▶/▼, >>>> ▷/▽, ▸/▾, or ▹/▿. It would even work on some text terminals. >>> >>> Bad idea, IMO. >> >> Why a bad idea? I’m curious to know. > > Because you basically cannot trust different fonts to look the same, > or even similar enough, and because some fonts will not have the glyph > for those characters, which means complications. It's tempting to use > a special character, because it's easy, but it's a false hope, it only > makes things more complicated. > >> From what I can see, unicode glyphs looks pretty good and comes for free, and as Yuri said they could even work on text terminals. At least for the simple shapes like ▶/▼, they seems to be a good option. > > We cannot base fundamental features of the Emacs UI on techniques that > _might_ work. We need techniques that _always_ work. I agree. Here is a patch for the high-res icons. Put both icon files under /etc/images/custom. In the patch I modified widget-image-find to look for @2x images. Can we even modify find-image so it looks for @2x images (as an opt-in feature)? That way Other applications (Magit, gdb-mi, etc) that uses images icons in buffer and fringe could have high-res icons without changing a line of code (assuming they use find-image). low-res