> Silvan Jegen said: >> I do agree that this is the right approach. There is however another >> instance of a wcwidth call on line st.c:3443 that should be handled as >> well (maybe with abs in that particular case?). > > As I get it, by the time wcwidth() is called there, all codepoints libc > is unaware of are already replaced with U+FFFD. If libc doesn't know > U+FFFD either, there will be enough problems running st that adding > workarounds for that case will not make sense.
I also agree. I don't like the idea of assuming that any non recognized symbol has length of 1. I think this is a door for problems in the future. I will apply the patch next week. Regards,
