On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:40:21PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 13/01/2016 01:00, Richard Heck a écrit : > >On 01/12/2016 06:53 PM, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:49:54PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:04:33AM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > >>> > >>>>For the symbol itself, my suggestion was a very elongated version of ⌟, > >>>>meant to recall the plain separator inset. But, a character that > >>>>would match the meaning would be the pilcrow sign (¶). One would just > >>>>have to make sure the a grey pilcrow sign (from end-of-paragraph marks) > >>>>is not displayed after a red pilcrow sign because this would look weird > >>>>(although could be allowed as a temporary measure). On the other hand, > >>>>what was the idea behind your suggestion of ↔ ? > >>>The symbol should not be too large, because it can also appear at the > >>>end of a line when importing old documents, so that the appearance > >>>would be ugly. The ↔ is simply a symbol that cannot be exchanged with > >>>the newline one and also gives the idea of a separator, although it > >>>probably fails to convey the concept that it introduces a blank line > >>>in the latex output. > >>What about a symbol like the attached one? It resembles a pilcrow with a > >>left pointing arrow. > > > It's better than what we have now at least :) However I am not so fan of > hand drawn symbols. I have failed to find anything coming close to that > symbol in Unicode. I find that the left pointing arrow removes rather > than adds. But it's better. > > Maybe ¶ does not grow on you as it did on me, but ultimately it is going > to be your call.
Maybe ¶ is also easier to implement and distinguishable by its different shading rather than color. -- Enrico
