Subject: Re: bug#38485: Customizing glyph widths

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 05:34:10 +0200

> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> From: Clément Pit-Claudel <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:53:43 -0500
> 
> > No, it will simply make each prettified symbol take up the same width
> > as the original characters of the symbol that were composed.  Isn't
> > that what everyone would want, and want for _all_ prettified symbols?
> 
> Probably not.  In proof-general, we display 'forall' as ∀ and 'exists' as ∃.  In my own configuration I also change "Qed" to ■ "Defined" to □, and "Admitted" to 😱.  These shouldn't be widened, I think — especially not the last ones (there is a case to be made for widening forall, since otherwise we might get indentation issues, but in Coq Qed, Defined and Admitted don't introduce indentation changes, so it's safe not to widen them.

Are you saying that we _can_ not widen them, or are you saying that we
_must_not_ widen them?  If the latter, can you explain why not?