Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I think the setting ought be called linestyle unicode (instead of
> utf8), since the same setting would presumably work in case we ever
> implement UTF-16 support on the client side.
Yeah, anytime one gets sloppy with the distinction between a character
set and a character encoding scheme, one tends to regret it, sooner or
later. Here's we're talking about which glyphs to show -- that's
based on a character set.
-Kevin
