On 4 Feb 2002, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "Herbert" == Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Herbert> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> his one-line fix to updateWidgetsFromLengthString,
>
>
> Herbert> it maybe not important, but I suppose that the unit "%"
>
> Herbert> will be misleading to a lot of users. Shouldn't we better
> Herbert> delete this one? Otherwise we always have the questions: 100%
> Herbert> of what?
>
> This reminds me of a question I had when working on those lyxlength
> recently:
>
> The latex output for the different type of % gives:
>
> switch(unit_) {
> case PW:
> case PE:
> buffer << abs(static_cast<int>(val_/100)) << "."
> << abs(static_cast<int>(val_)%100) << "\\columnwidth";
> break;
> case PP:
> buffer << abs(static_cast<int>(val_/100)) << "."
> << abs(static_cast<int>(val_)%100) << "\\paperwidth";
> break;
> case PL:
> buffer << abs(static_cast<int>(val_/100)) << "."
> << abs(static_cast<int>(val_)%100) << "\\linewidth";
> break;
>
> This means that we do not have anything which does % of \textwidth!
> (\paperwidth was \pagewidth before, which does not exist).
>
> I think that PW, which is I think related to "%" should have a
> case PW:
> buffer << abs(static_cast<int>(val_/100)) << "."
> << abs(static_cast<int>(val_)%100) << "\\textwidth";
> break;
>
> Thoughts?
I have several 1.1.6 etc. files that have figures where I set the
height as a percentage. When converted to 1.2.0cvs these are now
exported to latex as a % of \pagewidth. While in 1.1.6 they were
exported as a % of \textheight.
It would be very handy to have any height percentages be of heights
rather than widths.
Allan. (ARRae)
