On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 22:39, Nick Dokos <ndo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify: my intention was to advertise etc/ORG-NEWS more
> widely and point out that it's probably the best place to learn about
> things that are likely to break one's workflows (and if you read it
> before you update, you just might avoid unpleasant surprises - and
> this is not a specific "you", but a general "you" that includes
> everybody, including me: I often forget to do this and suffer the
> consequences).
Understood, and I appreciate your reply and interest in this topic.
> > Am I right about my use case being different, and therefore perhaps
> > having been caught up unintentionally in this change?
> >
>
> That may well be true: personally, I always thought of these cookies as
> minimum width specifiers, not
> maximum width.
>
> But I think you could do what you want by having a row that contains fixed
> width strings, instead of
> width cookies. To make it as unobtrusive as possible, I'd use non-breaking
> spaces as the character:
>
> | | |
> |
> | | |
> |
>
> There may be better solutions, but this is what sprang to my mind after
> reading your use case.
Yes indeed, and that is the solution that I'm now using. I'm not
totally sure yet if it's a durable solution or just a workaround - but
it's working for now.
Best wishes,
Neil
