> On 10 May 2020, at 00:01, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>
>> You can save extracting the xparts and yparts by using direct subtraction of
>> pairs and comparing with (0,0) like this:
>
> Aaaargh, no, ignore that, it's nonsense. It's amazing how you can stare at
> something for minutes but only see
> You can save extracting the xparts and yparts by using direct subtraction of
> pairs and comparing with (0,0) like this:
Aaaargh, no, ignore that, it's nonsense. It's amazing how you can stare at
something for minutes but only see the flaw the moment you press send. Sorry
for the noise.
--
B
> On 8 May 2020, at 13:58, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
>> On 8 May 2020, at 00:46, n...@scorecrow.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 May 2020, at 20:28, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a METAPOST algorithm that splits a path at a certain time in two,
>>> does something with both ends (not the ends where
> On 8 May 2020, at 00:46, n...@scorecrow.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7 May 2020, at 20:28, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>>
>> I have a METAPOST algorithm that splits a path at a certain time in two,
>> does something with both ends (not the ends where they were split) and then
>> rejoins them.
>>
>>
I have a METAPOST algorithm that splits a path at a certain time in two, does
something with both ends (not the ends where they were split) and then rejoins
them.
In very rare cases this crashes, because the subpath doesn’t work as expected.
firstPart := subpath (0,halfWayTime) of working
> On 7 May 2020, at 20:28, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
> I have a METAPOST algorithm that splits a path at a certain time in two, does
> something with both ends (not the ends where they were split) and then
> rejoins them.
>
> In very rare cases this crashes, because the subpath doesn’t work as