←back to thread

178 points dgl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.261s | source
Show context
mmastrac ◴[] 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 #
a5c11 ◴[] No.44363211[source]
Or you could just rely on the ordinary, fixed-width font available in every terminal? I mean, what do you need emojis for in a bash script?
replies(2): >>44363238 #>>44363336 #
kergonath ◴[] No.44363336[source]
Emoji are good to highlight information. A red cross stands out in a list of green ticks much better than a [failed] among the [passed].
replies(2): >>44363431 #>>44366339 #
kps ◴[] No.44366339[source]
And then I have to guess which unicode cross this particular tool picked so I can search for it in log.
replies(1): >>44369082 #
kergonath ◴[] No.44369082[source]
Emojis are for me. The grep-able stuff comes afterwards, in ASCII.
replies(1): >>44402997 #
1. noisy_boy ◴[] No.44402997[source]
Doesn't even have to be mutually exclusive - with log format including log level, you can get the best of both worlds.