Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Better border joining #169

Open
allyring opened this issue Feb 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

feat: Better border joining #169

allyring opened this issue Feb 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@allyring
Copy link

allyring commented Feb 17, 2023

I think it'd be nice to have text that's been rendered with borders to be able to join without gaps.

I think the main problem to solve here would be detecting corners and correctly replacing them with different box-joining characters (e.g.: , , etc), because the majority of the shared borders are usually the same character (e.g.: , )

A manually done example:

           ││           
           ││           
box 1      ││      box 2
           ││           
           ││           
───────────┘└───────────
────────────────────────
box 3

to

           │           
           │           
box 1      │      box 2
           │           
           │           
───────────┴───────────
box 3

I don't know if this would really allow for more features to be developed that take advantage of this or not, but it looks a lot nicer for more complex applications in my opinion.

@meowgorithm meowgorithm added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 17, 2023
@pachecot
Copy link

I was thinking of something along these lines too.

Thinking would need new some new functions JoinBordersVertical & JoinBordersHorizontal or similar to do this.

Would be nice to include some options on how they are joined. Would ││ be joined to or ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants