bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#39082: Inconsolata v3.000 has too wide spacing


From: Andrea Greselin
Subject: bug#39082: Inconsolata v3.000 has too wide spacing
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 19:17:38 +0100

> An easier way to get at the character glyph metrics is like this:
>
>   M-: (font-get-glyphs (font-at 1) 1 2) RET

Having launched Emacs with `emacs -Q -fn Inconsolata-12` I get

  [[0 0 59 541 29 2 7 9 4 nil]]

> It would be also interesting to compare this with a font that is
> displayed "normally".

With `emacs -Q -fn "DejaVu Sans Mono-12"` (which displays correctly)
the output is

  [[0 0 59 30 11 3 8 10 3 nil]]

I've run both test on a scratch buffer showing its message, so they
should be referring to the character ";". `(font-get-glyphs (font-at
1) 100 101)` returns

  [[0 0 116 415 29 0 10 12 0 nil]]

with Inconsolata and

  [[0 0 116 87 11 0 11 14 0 nil]]

with DejaVu.

The fourth values look rather off, and the fifth too.

Andrea

On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 18:52, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:56:08 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:37:58 +0200
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> >
> > Sadly, I have no idea how to go about investigating this problem
> > further, maybe someone else does?
>
> One idea is to look at the character glyph metric we get from the font
> here:

An easier way to get at the character glyph metrics is like this:

  M-: (font-get-glyphs (font-at 1) 1 2) RET

This should show the glyph metrics of the font glyph used to display
the character at buffer position 1.  (Change 1 to any other buffer
position to report on a character there, and then change 2 to 1 more
than that position, for example 100 and 101 for the character at
buffer position 100.)

I'm mostly interested in the WIDTH element (the 5th element) of the
result, but maybe others will also show something important.  It would
be also interesting to compare this with a font that is displayed
"normally".

Thanks.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]