2005/10/19, Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"... > > I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would using "point" for > PostScript point be less accurate?
I dunno; I did a bit of googling the last time I searched, and the name "point" is a lot more vague than I previously thought -- there are like 5 different kinds of "points" used historically, all of which are annoyingly close to each other, but different enough to cause problems. However I think people _do_ use the term, and would be surprised if it isn't understood. If you're gonna pick something to resolve an ambiguous term, your decision is inevitably going to be wrong for somebody, but by picking the most commonly used definition, at least you reduce the number of such cases. [Maybe 25 years ago, the tex definition would have been the best resolution, but I don't think that's true now.] > Also, using "point" for point (of > whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps > "texpoint" for TeX point would be better. Well you're probably right that it should be "pspoint", with an alias. [The common name for what tex uses seems to be "typographer's point"] -miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
