Unintentional missing glyphs in v0.055? about juliamono HOT 6 CLOSED

Oh, sure. It's not yet public code but here's that snippet:

        @threads for j ∈ eachindex(𝒯.R)
            Rⱼ = 𝒯.R[j]
            αⱼ = real(𝒯.α[j])
            ð̄²α = real(𝒯.ð̄²α[j])
            κ⁻¹ = γ * (1 - v⃗ ⋅ Rⱼ(𝐤))
            spline = @view 𝒯.splines[:, :, j]
            guess = firstindex(𝒯.u)
            for (i, u′) ∈ enumerate(𝒯.u′)
                u = κ⁻¹ * u′ + αⱼ
                d, guess = interpolate(𝒯.u, 𝒯.h, spline, u, guess)
                𝒯.d′[j,i] = κ⁻¹ * (d - ð̄²α)
            end
        end

(Also, here as a gist for no reason.)

from juliamono.

Perhaps you could upload a text file here containing the code you've typed, and I can see what it looks like... ?

from juliamono.

On my Mac (Ventura 13.6)

VSCode:

Terminal (Vim):

Cot editor:

Wezterm (Helix):

I'd say VSCode is struggling a little, but mostly they look OK. As you probably know, not all terminals can render every possible glyph composition correctly...

Just to be on the safe side, make sure you delete all JuliaMono.*Latin.ttf files - these occasionally slip into play by accident and can confuse the unwary with the sudden lack of glyphs.

Other than that, I can only think that there's some unwelcome font cache-ing still going on. The OS really doesn't want to let go of any fonts that might conceivably be in use.

from juliamono.

Just to be on the safe side, make sure you delete all JuliaMono.*Latin.ttf files - these occasionally slip into play by accident and can confuse the unwary with the sudden lack of glyphs.

What? There are JuliaMono-RegularLatin.ttf and JuliaMono-BoldLatin.ttf that come with the current release. Are you saying there may be files with a dot in the name from some old installation? Or are you saying that I shouldn't install these Latin files that come with the current release?

Other than that, I can only think that there's some unwelcome font cache-ing still going on. The OS really doesn't want to let go of any fonts that might conceivably be in use.

I closed everything, removed JuliaMono via Font Book, searched almost my entire computer to make sure there were no JuliaMono* files remaining, then ran sudo atsutil databases -remove && sudo atsutil server -shutdown && sudo atsutil server -ping, restarted my computer, and installed the JuliaMono 0.055 ttf files again. Same problems.

Can you suggest any other rocks for me to look under?

I'm really confused because this all started when I just installed 0.055 without removing 0.054 (telling Font Book to replace , so I would have thought that in the worst-case scenario it might pick up the older version, but not just totally fail to find glyphs at all. Also, I've noticed that indeed the -> and => ligatures are now gone.

from juliamono.

I wish I could reproduce your problem.

What? There are JuliaMono-RegularLatin.ttf and JuliaMono-BoldLatin.ttf

JuliaMono is quite a big font, and so (as the documentation explains) there are two smaller versions of the font included, which are basically restricted to the ISOLatin character set. These have "Latin" in the name. They don't usually cause any problems (I've never seen a problem personally), but it is of course possible that one of these Latin fonts gets prioritized and selected by the font management utility you're using (there are many and they all have quirks). If this happens, then most of the characters you see (apart from the lowest 400 or so in the Unicode chart) will be fallback glyphs from other fonts.

(As with most fonts, if you don't need a particular file, just delete it. The last time I downloaded CascadiaCode, I got 88 TTF and 77 OTF font files...)

One way to tell which version of JuliaMono you're currently seeing, which avoids complications such as stylistic sets and contextual alternates, is to look at the representation of the Unicode character U+E843:

echo -e "\ue843"

which should look like this:

And, because this is a Private Use Area glyph, there will be a question mark if any other font (including JuliaMono-RegularLatin) is active.

from juliamono.

Ah, I didn't understand that I wasn't supposed to install the Latin variants. Deleting those seems to have solved my problems. I've reinstalled 0.055 now, and everything (except for \eth\bar) looks great. Thanks for the clarification!

Also, that \ue843 trick is pretty neat. Funny enough, when I copy-pasted that into VS Code while 0.054 was still installed, it showed up properly, but then Github Copilot suggested a glyph that looked almost the same, but with 0.053. (Maybe an italic variant that hadn't been updated, because Copilot's suggestions are in italics?)

from juliamono.