-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On July 18, 2014 5:56:26 PM GMT+03:00, Charles Campbell <charles.e.campb...@nasa.gov> wrote: >Tony Mechelynck wrote: >> On 17/07/14 21:55, Bram Moolenaar wrote: >>> >>> Charles Campbell wrote: >>> >>>> The following line, when in a buffer that vim is displaying: >>>> >>>> ||||m=⎣ℜ(b-a)⎦=1~1026 >>>> >>>> has the "script R" displayed correctly when the cursor is swept >over it >>>> from right to left, >>>> but the "script R" is displayed incorrectly when the cursor is >swept >>>> over it from left to right. >>>> >>>> I'm using: >>>> >>>> Scientific Linux 6.5 (Carbon) >>>> vim 7.4.372 >>>> set guifont=Monospace\ Bold\ 12 >>>> configure --with-features=huge --enable-gui=gtk2 >--enable-perlinterp >>>> --enable-pythoninterp --enable-cscope >>> >>> Looks like a problem with the font: the character is wider than the >>> display cell. Thus when drawing the character to the right of the >>> "script R" it erases the rightmost pixels of it. >>> >> >> Reminds me of a problem I've had in the past with a totally different > >> font, and without doublewidth. >> >> Once upon a time I used Lucida (Lucida Console on Windows, Lucida >> Typewriter on Linux: I still used both platforms then); then I >noticed >> that in bold Cyrillic I had the problem described: sweeping the >cursor >> over the text made it look wrong when swept in one direction, right >> when swept in the opposite direction. >> >> On closer look, the bold Cyrillic glyphs of the Lucida font were >> apparently constructed by superimposing the unbold glyphs with a copy > >> of themselves shifted laterally by one pixel, and thus the bold >glyphs >> were one pixel wider than the normal-weight glyphs (and than the >> declared glyph-width of the font), which gvim "didn't like". >> >> So I found a different font (Bitstream Vera Sans Mono) which doesn't >> have this problem, and can AFAICT display Latin and Cyrillic with or >> without bold or italic (or, of course, underlined) with no problem. >> >> >> Dr. Chip, maybe you can find a different font, which has the glyph >but >> not the problem? It may require some trial and error. >I've been through all the fonts that have "mono" in their names on my >system; each of them has the same problem that Luxi Mono has. Most of >the rest look like they use double-spacing: i e . t h e y r e s e m b >l >e t h i s; although that does mean that the R shows up completely. >I'll probably just make do with having that R look like an F most of >the >time.
Are you sure they do have fullwidth characters? Last time I tried to say something like "fullwidth characters from terminus work perfectly" in defence of the position that monospace fonts do have characters with different width I was pointed out that there are *no* fullwidth characters there meaning that whatever library is responsible for displaying fonts is picking them from some other font. I.e. more experienced people have told me that there *cannot be* characters that occupy more then one display cell in monospace font. It may be a key to what you are seeing: 1. Most of the monospace fonts "have the same problem" do not actually have it because they simply have no glyphs. 2. Most of the rest have fullwidth characters fitted in one display cell effectively meaning that at least half of the two cells' space will be occupied by nothing. 3. You have not mentioned, but probably the rest that shows rectangle or whatever missing glyph symbol is there do not have fallbacks configured to take glyphs from (this point may be absent). 4. You also have not mentioned, but if some font have sane fullwidth characters then they probably have different font as fallback (this point may be absent). 5. Some fonts are broken as described by OP: they have glyph, but it is too wide for them to be able to have without breaking something (in first case problems are caused by fallbacks that are too wide as well). Am I right (especially about 3. and 4.)? To actually check present glyphs you need either things like fontforge or terminal (or other program capable of displaying fonts) that is not able to use fallbacks or can omit using them. One of such terminals is urxvt (rxvt-unicode): it has its own configuration for fallbacks. Some others use fontconfig. I am not using gVim, so had never seen such problem: konsole+vim/zsh seem to handle everything fine. I only used fullwidth characters for some tests though. > >Thanks! >Chip Campbell -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.1.1 iQI1BAEBCgAfBQJTyUFQGBxaeVggPHp5eC52aW1AZ21haWwuY29tPgAKCRCf3UKj HhHSvm50EACZdaXgTNIVtVtr48Bg0HsGkrBdoNberj+tfGwy9TxVukrjw4wnda0F MUofSCGdGXbua+G/kIyQ0sj9VYODJxAOvPHz40chH5H0ACbpClAlvV1rL+bIdSoU NMB10EyqFuFkJ+7sB4n6dT/CqISt7gyF5kSzJ0OATh295n7fxdGZF7HqnLya3/Hx IOQpvNSF3PiPj1PYrLp7h0YrbO0aM5S+MOnPiGCycslNTx/TDZztQ9jj3bTmkadM rDzt/AOHsAfcy+eA9GtM1UHhOnyGac4FrZCkIz33yxupOPfRJM0w4aisK5la4/8v jRGGMOFtgVddN1xZfdVnB0FXLY2ivXGnwuDnkVRjlbpYIwLwUXOeM5T0TxO0px7l z4d1eOl6V5iMjp5gRdnjEZBcjxHYRbFasfaB85ZkdjupCkCI/PXwXNU0N//lrZhs e9kARSIFxLnvrw2jaAH0mBmrCn+640GSGqzWBsZP/wc+2T0ijwK/4s/n2Hu9Ya+0 C3M6QijMSfRWodolcv83Wpbyg0U2PqR/03zl0IkmNDN/7Kmt3gtfYXHCbrSVgMA2 ++qy/AfD8Nng5V7YqJ+2sPuaqycspNo/5/Kzi7dL6wqbEk+CxiRmxhTJUhLwjGTa 6gFn8WtKmw7eFn9E0SUJYhbi7rrgX0TUpaNLODAx2JWvczNhkIhTjQ== =hEdE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
