Re: curses should not suppress unassigned codepoints

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016, at 00:37, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:18:59PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > > Unicode codepoints that don't yet have a character assigned
> > > to them, are somehow suppressed by ncurses.
> 
> On second thought: unassigned codepoints don't have a defined width
> and representation.

True.  But the representation doesn't matter to ncurses, just the
width.  Why not default to 1 for the width?  Or to 3, to accommodate
what will actually happen on a terminal emulator?

> ncurses has always displayed a blank for those cases.

But that is deception.  It makes it seem as if nothing is there,
but the application is trying to show something.  What is the
rationale for ncurses to censor that?

If the application wanted to show blank space, it would send
blanks.  So ncurses certainly should not show blanks instead
of the unassigned codepoints.  And why replace them with
something else when the terminal itself is perfectly able
to either show the codepoint or put in a replacement?

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free