From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from joooj.vinc17.net (joooj.vinc17.net [155.133.131.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D8415ECE2 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 10:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=155.133.131.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723200065; cv=none; b=iSXgrPYQuu+MIv5eh6yB0NC4jQRiidXfJWh1MI31El4oU2Ll18ht7qInIf6Tq1euy8p4a+NT9ckHb+zKyxVAU2CNbWEhcwtKQdlnG1Kryq34HZUs9s1VLeGxbLY6Wj3GJPMgAYkiQcahE1HNYKWa741/PEBwbQ8KU36J25tznBU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723200065; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7dhY7zvFOREeekiCaXzd9EjEAoZJKNhbGC+YwXHvLlA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fpGNpHwlIjq4WuhEmg8O1DtR/yJ5/lZvk7gcJCozeUtO1tCFv5jWQaskhT8J6BLt25B+Pfu3rVjS7+AR8yS2ppxk66gSaaNr89MX8/gcMLDhOmkEbXUjGdkgTOpQfE+IdEngbEqDGg6iEOC/q8T4ZVWp10Nk6eDpeE+FKQDiLLA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=vinc17.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vinc17.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=155.133.131.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=vinc17.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=vinc17.net Received: from smtp-qaa.vinc17.net (2a02-8428-1b1d-4d01-96a9-491d-7b48-ba31.rev.sfr.net [IPv6:2a02:8428:1b1d:4d01:96a9:491d:7b48:ba31]) by joooj.vinc17.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D42F3D6; Fri, 9 Aug 2024 12:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by qaa.vinc17.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 498E6CA00FF; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 12:41:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 12:41:01 +0200 From: Vincent Lefevre To: John Gardner Cc: Dave Kemper , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, groff@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements Message-ID: <20240809104101.GD4789@qaa.vinc17.org> References: <20240807105617.GH3221@qaa.vinc17.org> <20240808025636.GE3086@qaa.vinc17.org> <20240808121603.fatotzqmtpbf2jez@illithid> <20240808125838.GD2669@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> <20240809092514.GB4789@qaa.vinc17.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Mailer-Info: https://www.vinc17.net/mutt/ User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.13+77 (9dc98409) vl-169878 (2024-06-20) On 2024-08-09 19:38:48 +1000, John Gardner wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > > I really see a "+" underlined > > Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now out > of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go. The underline bar is slightly different from an underscore, but this is not the issue. What matters is that the underlined "+" is very different from the ± character: in this ± character, the "+" part and the "-" part have the same width, but in the underlined "+", the underline bar is larger than the "+"; moreover, the underline bar is below the baseline. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)