Hi Ted,
> I doubt whether two sheets of paper from the same A4 pack
> agree this closely, let alone two sheets from different packs!
Quite agree in the real world; I was wondering at the time if it could
have had a knock on effect on the calculations.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/
> Apparently it is nevertheless done by ghostscript regardless
> of output device.
My bad, it's not ghostscript that does this by itself, but rather
the procedures from the grops prolog that cause this to be done.
> It seems odd to subtract 0.25 before rounding to the nearest integer
> rather than 0.5, but perhaps it's accomodating the transform?
This appears to be a trick to prevent line widths of horizontal
and vertical lines from growing in 2-pixel increments in the
final raster image when slowly increa
With regard to:
"So I took this to mean that whole points were Ok for paper sizes"
one has to agree! The discrepancies between "atatutory" A4 sizes
"595.276 by 841.89" and tha practicsl "595 by 842" are:
0.276/72 of an inch = 3,833... inch/1000
approx = 4 thousandths of an inch
0.11/72
On Monday, 30 July 2018 13:23:04 BST Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Deri,
>
> Thanks for the very prompt reply. Sorry if I seemed grumpy; just time
> pressure from deviating down another rabbit hole. :-)
>
Hi Ralph,
I did not notice the grumps, I'm still looking for Alice too! :-)
> > One differe
Hi Deri,
Thanks for the very prompt reply. Sorry if I seemed grumpy; just time
pressure from deviating down another rabbit hole. :-)
> V2000
> H72000
> DFd
> v2500
> md
> s1
> Dl 13330 0
> n2000 0
>
> So it looks like the horizontal position of the start of t
On Saturday, 28 July 2018 14:37:14 BST Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> I think grops should copy grops's choice of default line width.
> And the differences in coordinates seem odd. Even if they're correctly
> compensating for line-cap differences, should those differences exist?
Hi Ralph,
I agree. grop
Hi,
Have prepared a page of tables and out of habit used -Tps piped into
ps2pdf(1), I realised I should switch to gropdf(1) but instantly noticed
the output was a lot more ugly; enough to force me back.
$ cat bug
#! /bin/sh
cat >line.tbl <<\E
.TS
l.
_
foo
=
.
