Re: Tick Reduction

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru,  stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 19:00:18 +0100
> 
> The "L" wouldn't be monospacified here -- only the digits.  And in the
> vast majority of fonts, the digits are the width we're aiming for, at
> least as far as I can see, so it will visually be no change.
> 
> (Monospeciation of the numbers is basically not necessary unless you
> have a very odd font -- virtually all proportional fonts do not have
> proportional widths for the digits.)

Sorry, I'm now confused.  You say the width of "L" will not be changed
and the width of digits doesn't need to be changed?  Then why are we
doing all this, if there will be no change?

(And btw, displaying "L" normally while "1234" not normally is quite a
lot more difficult than handling all characters the same, because the
display code generally doesn't distinguish between characters.  Unless
you make "L" that "default character" whose advance width is used for
all the other characters, that is.  But if you do that, then what
about "C" in the column number?)

> First line without monospacification, second line with:

For the "U:---" part, each dash character is a separate field, so what
are the benefits of using proportional fonts there?  For the
line/column number, I don't see any significant difference, barely a
pixel here and there.  So I wonder what is this all about.  I'm
probably missing something important.