Web lists-archives.com

Re: Cygwin fails to utilize Unicode replacement character





On 04.09.2018 14:49, David Macek wrote:
On 4. 9. 2018 11:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
We either keep 0xfffd now and the user gets the nodef glyph, or I revert
the patch and let the console print 0x2592 MEDIUM SHADE again.

Decision has to be made today.  I will release 2.11.1 tomorrow.

I vote for keeping the patch and printing 0xFFFD.  It's okay in the default case, it's exactly what was requested in the non-standard font case and it's future
proof in case ConHost implements rendering using fallback fonts.

My vote is against the patch because the nodef glyph will often be just blank space which is certainly worse than ▒. If conhost does not provide a reasonable way to enquire 0xFFFD availability it's conhost's fault, not cygwin's so why should cygwin implement a bad compromise. If conhost ever improves, cygwin can adapt.
Thomas

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple