We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I noticed in JuliaLang/julia#23820 that utf8proc returns a different character width for the join symbol ⨝ (U+2a1d) vs the bowtie symbol ⋈ (U+22c8), even though they seem to use an identical glyph in many (but not all!) fonts:
julia> charwidth('⋈') # bowtie U+22c8 1 julia> charwidth('⨝') # join U+2A1D 2
I'm not sure why this happened — maybe GNU Unifont uses a different width for the two symbols? (cc @jiahao)
The EastAsianWidth-9.0.0.txt file for UAX#11 lists both of these as "neutral":
22C0..22FF;N # Sm [64] N-ARY LOGICAL AND..Z NOTATION BAG MEMBERSHIP 2A00..2AFF;N # Sm [256] N-ARY CIRCLED DOT OPERATOR..N-ARY WHITE VERTICAL BAR
If we treated neutral width as narrow (as suggested in #83), then both symbols would have width 1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
I noticed in JuliaLang/julia#23820 that utf8proc returns a different character width for the join symbol ⨝ (U+2a1d) vs the bowtie symbol ⋈ (U+22c8), even though they seem to use an identical glyph in many (but not all!) fonts:
I'm not sure why this happened — maybe GNU Unifont uses a different width for the two symbols? (cc @jiahao)
The EastAsianWidth-9.0.0.txt file for UAX#11 lists both of these as "neutral":
If we treated neutral width as narrow (as suggested in #83), then both symbols would have width 1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: