> Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (PvO) wrote:
>PvO> In mm:
>PvO> Postscript: 0.03528
>PvO> TeX: 0.0351459803515
Sorry, those were cm, not mm.
--
Piet van Oostrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> The units in question are
>
> pt = 100:7227 in (point)
> in = 254:100 cm (inch)
> pc = 12pt (pica)
> cm
> mm
> bp = 1:72 in (big point, same as PostScript's idea of point)
> dd = 1238:1157pt (Didot point)
> cc = 12dd (cicero)
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>2005/10/19, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's too long to enter already. It would be an idea to offer all TeX
>> dimensions with t prefixed:
> ...
>> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.
>
> I does seem interesting, and would be much m
> Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (JB) wrote:
>JB> According to the data file for the units program, the printer's point
>JB> (the same as typographer's point?) is precisely 0.013837 inches, while
>JB> the TeX point is 1/72.27 inches = 0.013837000138... inches. Then the
>JB> units program ch
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2005/10/19, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's too long to enter already. It would be an idea to offer all TeX
>> dimensions with t prefixed:
> ...
>> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.
>
> I does seem interesting, and would be much m
2005/10/19, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's too long to enter already. It would be an idea to offer all TeX
> dimensions with t prefixed:
...
> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.
I does seem interesting, and would be much more practical if you just
used "tex" as a prefix in
Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...
>>> 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 "pspoin
Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point). It's not
>>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>>
>> I suspect more
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
>> 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.
That's a good idea, although I
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
nam
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point). It's not
>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>
> I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real poin
>> There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.
>
> The question is whether its the business of calc to be convenient or
> to educate. Of course, K should be available as a unit of its own,
> but I see no harm by degK being an alias.
Here is what units.dat contains:
degK
James Cloos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Jay" == Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin".
>
> Jay> Why?
>
> There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.
The question is whether its the business of calc to be
> "Jay" == Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin".
Jay> Why?
There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.
(As an aside, I also agree that pt should remain pints.)
-JimC
--
James H. Cloos, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTE
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 us
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point). It's not
>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>
> I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real point
Hallöchen!
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el,
>> in the attached patch.
>>
>> "pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the
>> typographic point (pt). I think this
2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point). It's not
> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...
Probably better to make "pt" / "point" me
Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el, in
> the attached patch.
>
> "pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the typographic
> point (pt). I think this is more practical since the latter is much
> more significant f
Hallöchen!
I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el, in
the attached patch.
"pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the typographic
point (pt). I think this is more practical since the latter is much
more significant for calc usage, and its current abbreviation
20 matches
Mail list logo
