On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, manuelschiller.pimail via vim_dev <vim_dev@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On Monday, 8 August 2016 14:51:01 UTC+2, Tony Mechelynck wrote: >> Well, if you let Pango do glyph reshaping for U+0020 to U+007F you >> might end up with what you said you didn't want, i.e. fi fl st ffi ffl >> digraphs and trigraphs, which in my experience are actually uglier (in >> monospaced fonts) than just letting the individual letters stand side >> by side. Try the following in a gvim (even unpatched) with 'encoding' >> set to utf-8 to see what I mean: >> 1. Enter Insert mode (i or a or o or whatever) >> 2. Type the following sequences (with no spaces). Each sequence should >> output one glyph. >> Ctrl-V u fb00 >> Ctrl-V u fb01 >> Ctrl-V u fb02 >> Ctrl-V u fb03 >> Ctrl-V u fb04 >> Ctrl-V u fb05 >> Ctrl-V u fb06 >> You should see, in that order, the glyphs for ff fi fl ft st ffi ffl. >> I absolutely don't like them (in the monospaced fonts that have them; >> in serif or sans-serif fonts it's different, especially in serif >> italic). OTOH, I think that expanding them to two or three character >> cells would be ugly the opposite way. > > Point taken, but this is not what the patch does. The sets [A-Z], [a-z], > [0-9], and ' ' are still drawn without glyph shaping, when there's nothing > else in the string being drawn that requires it - just as the old code did. > (And the old code also fell back to full glyph shaping once you move above > character code 128, i.e. into the range where you start to get UTF-8 encoded > characters...) So in that sense, there's no substantial change in strategy. > > Also, I'm not changing the width of any glyph drawn, so there is no expansion > of glyphs going on. It's just a question of how exactly the cache works that > bypasses the glyph shaping (and which strings are allowed to bypass the glyph > shaping process by going through the cache...). > > Are you proposing changes to the patch, or are you more concerned about how > it'll look? In the former case, maybe you could outline which changes you'd > like to see? In the latter case, why not just give the patch a try (e.g by > typing one of the character combinations, and see if it does what you'd like > it to do), and tell me which bits you don't like (which is much more > productive than discussing in the abstract)?
I'm concerned about how it will look, and I wasn't aware that you were intentionally short-circuiting Pango for all letters and digits. Yes, these 6 codepoints (U+FB01 to U+FB06) are above the ASCII range but they show examples of what one could get by replacing some particular pairs of letters. Similarly, the Arabic subsystem of Vim fetches its glyphs by (IIUC) altering their codepoint numbers depending on whether they're joined to a preceding character, or to a following character, or whether a lam and an alif are found together in that order, thus implementing the rules for Arabic character shaping by means of "presentation form" codepoints. > > Kind regards, > > Manuel Best regards, Tony. -- -- 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.
