←back to thread

Can your terminal do emojis? How big?

(dgl.cx)
178 points dgl | 3 comments | 24 Jun 25 02:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.803s | source
Show context
mmastrac ◴[24 Jun 25 04:28 UTC] No.44362863[source]▶
I'd be happy if we could get terminals to agree on how wide the warning triangle emoji renders. The emoji are certainly useful for scripts, but often widths are such a crapshoot. I cannot add width detection to every bash script I write for every emoji I want to use.

If only there was a standards body that could perhaps spec how these work in terminals.

replies(4): >>44362918 #>>44363071 #>>44363211 #>>44369636 #
1. noisy_boy ◴[24 Jun 25 05:24 UTC] No.44363071[source]▶
What a coincidence that I spent a good portion of time trying to deal with the warning triangle emoji and see your comment today. Incidentally the info and green ticks are not so bad. Wonder why that specific one has width issues.
replies(1): >>44365521 #
2. layer8 ◴[24 Jun 25 12:37 UTC] No.44365521[source]▶
It was traditionally often single-width in text representation, but double-width in emoji presentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji#Emoji_versus_text_presen...
replies(1): >>44366359 #
3. kps ◴[24 Jun 25 14:00 UTC] No.44366359[source]▶
And Unicode threw out all pretense of stability by retroactively changing some characters to default-emoji.