Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... >> Anyway, I think it unreasonable to work with gal, qt, but then >> require "pint". If gal and qt are the usual abbreviations, then I >> think the normally used abbreviation for pint should also be used. >> Sure, TeX users would prefer to have pt and bp, but I don't think >> at the price of making the Imperial system inconsistent. > > Thanks to you and Miles for your input. The most important "point" > is indeed the "1/72in" point. Therefore, I attached a slightly > different proposal: Keep "tpt" and add "pt" as a synonym for > "point".
The problems with this are: * It still breaks the gal-qt-pt conventions. * I would think most people who know of pt as an abbreviation for point also know of it as an abbreviate for pint, while I doubt the opposite is true. * The units program uses pt for pint; I doubt we want an abbreviation to mean one thing for the units program and another in the Calc units package. (There are currently a couple of places where this occurs; I'll fix them where approprate. The units.dat file is an interesting read.) > P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin". Why? Jay _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
