Re: Removing rollback from VC mode - request for comment

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> You are right, also I find the symbols provided my the functionality you
>> mentioned quite ugly compared to the one presented by x-symbol, a bit
>> like comparing a math documented generated by (La)TeX or say by an IBM
>> from then seventies.....
>
> This seems to be a simple matter of choosing the right font.  IOW it
> completely depends on your particular setup.  Maybe if you post
> a snapshot showing the symbols chosen by Emacs for the actual characters
> alongside the symbols displayed by X-Symbol for the corresponding TeX
> commands, someone will be able to help you get Emacs to choose
> better symbols.

I think X-Symbol installs its own set of fonts with an encoding of their
own.  I suspect those more likely or not to be hand-created (or at least
hand-corrected) on a per-pixel base rather than by some computational
tracing process from a vectorized description.

I see this effect a lot in musical instruments: mechanical processes and
milling precision have improved so much in the last half century that
there seems to be little point in putting in additional manual labor.

But it was actually the manual labor that created a coherent whole from
too crudely mechanically preprocessed raw materials.  When the raw
result was falling short by 10%, omitting the finishing work was not
much of an option.  If it falls short by 1%, why bother?

To get back to the issue in question: In particular for obscure code
points nobody is likely to be using?

The code points in X-Symbol's own fonts, in contrast, are known to be
exercised a lot, so correspondingly more care went into them.

-- 
David Kastrup