Re: Cygwin fails to utilize Unicode replacement character

[Thomas Wolff <towo at towo dot net>]

On 04.09.2018 14:49, David Macek wrote:
> On 4. 9. 2018 11:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > We either keep 0xfffd now and the user gets the nodef glyph, or I revert
> > the patch and let the console print 0x2592 MEDIUM SHADE again.
> >
> > Decision has to be made today.  I will release 2.11.1 tomorrow.
>
> I vote for keeping the patch and printing 0xFFFD.  It's okay in the 
> default case,
> it's exactly what was requested in the non-standard font case and it's 
> future
> proof in case ConHost implements rendering using fallback fonts.
My vote is against the patch because the nodef glyph will often be just 
blank space which is certainly worse than ▒.
If conhost does not provide a reasonable way to enquire 0xFFFD 
availability it's conhost's fault, not cygwin's so why should cygwin 
implement a bad compromise. If conhost ever improves, cygwin can adapt.
Thomas

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple