On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 09:00:06AM +0600, NRK wrote:
> the dwm source code somewhat silently assumes that the symbol will fit
> into 16 bytes. but this may not be the case since users can define
> longer symbols in `config.h` (and there's no comment or note stating
> anything about the size require
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 09:55:00AM +0200, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> I think its simpler to just add the comment if needed.
That's an option, yes. And I've considered it too. But it gets messy
with Unicode/UTF-8 where one visible character != one byte.
If you still think that's the way to go, then
Doesn't this affect readability? Would it be easier to make the layout
symbol size 15 (one less than the monitor symbol)?
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, 05:00 NRK, wrote:
> the dwm source code somewhat silently assumes that the symbol will fit
> into 16 bytes. but this may not be the case since users can
Yes it affects readability and I don't like the patch.
BTW please don't send HTML mail to this mailinglist.
Thanks,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 08:47:41AM +0200, Stein Gunnar Bakkeby wrote:
>Doesn't this affect readability? Would it be easier to make the layout
>symbol size 15 (one less than
On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 08:47:41AM +0200, Stein Gunnar Bakkeby wrote:
> Would it be easier to make the layout
> symbol size 15 (one less than the monitor symbol)?
Not really, since the src might still end up not containing the
nul-byte, the 16th byte will have to nul-terminated anyways. For
exampl
