> I like to use Kim's fringe "buffer-boundary indicator" bitmap feature
> (set with the variable `indicate-buffer-boundaries'), but the default
> bitmaps are rather unpleasant for several reasons --
> (1) They're quite "heavy", so tend to draw the eye too much.
I don't have a problem with the "heavy" appearence, and they were
designed to be similar to / consistent with the older bitmaps.
> Could people try them out? Maybe these would be better defaults than
> the existing bitmaps.
I find your "slimmer" bitmaps are quite nice on their own, but
I don't think they are an improvement. YMMV.
> A related issue is the name of the bitmaps -- currently the names
> reflect the physical appearance of the default bitmaps, but I think it
> would be better if the names reflected their logical use. For instance,
> a user might want to change the bitmap meaning "end of buffer" to be a
> little "EOB" (shades of EDT... :-); in such an instance, not only is it
> a bit wierd that it's called `bottom-left-angle', but there's a danger
> that in the future some new feature will use the same bitmap (based on
> its physical appearance); making the names "logical" would make it more
> clear that this is bad.
You are right that the current naming is not logical.
Feel free to suggest better names, and change the code and docs accordingly.