Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > I still think it is wrong, but I am not going to fight forever on that
> > (what is there a space in "foo bar" and not "foo_bar"???).
>
> The internal behaviour of a space and a character is different. LaTeX can
> change the width of spaces to e.g. fit a line into the column margins.
That's not true for all spaces. Non-break spaces are of fixed width as well.
And so is \thinspace.
> Spaces are something completely different than characters.
> \textvisiblespace is nothing more than a character built out of 3 strokes.
> Many fonts not even have a real glyph for it. This character only
> represents a space, but technically it is nothing else like any other
> character. So you could also simply use "_" to visualize a space in e.g. a
> code.
And this is exactly why it makes sense. It's a possibility to represent a
space. Why shouldn't InsetSpace allow for that possibility?
The discussion about glyph classification ("technical symbol" vs. "space") is
completely irrelevant for most users. They might just want to "make a space
visible", and that's what \textvisible space is useful for.
Jürgen
