Hi, putting the submitter back in the loop. Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net> (10/11/2006): > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:00:11AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Hi, > > > > By doing this (putting a mail-like > in front of U+2218), you're making > > vim output U+2218 in bold font (because the mail syntax expresses a > > color that result into bold font in your vim configuration). Then xterm > > has to draw a bold U+2218. The problem is that for this you need a bold > > font that holds U+2218, and it seems your system doesn't have any (just > > like mine, actually), so xterm can't do much. > > From the context, it sounds as if the font contains other glyphs that work. > I might be able to improve it by making xterm check if the normal/bold > fonts contain a different number of glyphs, and in that case add some > checks to use the normal glyph when the bold one is missing. What's the status here? KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature