On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> Elias Diem wrote:
>
> > This is again a small patch to stick closer to vim's code style.
> >
> > A question though:
> > Does it make sense to ``produce'' such patches?
> > I think it is very cumbersome to have a look at such pat
On Jul 27, 2011 12:59 AM, "Benjamin R. Haskell" wrote:
>
> Here's the whole set for testing:
> ₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₇₈₉
>
Of those 10 chars, _only_ 1 to 4 show up on my tablet's screen... so that
may be an indication of special status as wel?
Christ van Willegen
--
You received this message from the "vim_de
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:00:13AM +0200, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 27/07/11 00:42, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
> >>
> From my reading of http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/, none of these
>
On 27/07/11 00:42, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
From my reading of http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/, none of these
characters should be considered to be of ambiguous width (they
should all be single-
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
From my reading of http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/, none of these
characters should be considered to be of ambiguous width (they
should all be single-width).
In whatever font rxvt-unicode is cur
[Redirecting to vim-dev (looks buggy, and at the least is very techy).]
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Caleb Eggensperger wrote:
I think this is a bug. With ambiwidth=double, the unicode character
'₀' (U+2080, the subscript '0') is single-width, but '₁-₉'
(U+2081-U+2089, subscripts 1-9) are double-width
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
From my reading of http://unicode.org/reports/tr11/, none of these
characters should be considered to be of ambiguous width (they should all
be single-width).
In whatever font rxvt-unicode is currently using, ₁₂₃₄ indeed shows up
incorrectly.
Elias Diem wrote:
> This is again a small patch to stick closer to vim's code style.
>
> A question though:
> Does it make sense to ``produce'' such patches?
> I think it is very cumbersome to have a look at such patches. Many many
> lines of code.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, I don't bother pr
Hi all
This is again a small patch to stick closer to vim's code style.
A question though:
Does it make sense to ``produce'' such patches?
I think it is very cumbersome to have a look at such patches. Many many
lines of code.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't bother producing them. I just like to
