Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread Deri James
On Tue 09 May 2017 13:55:38 John Gardner wrote: > Looks like there's a mistake in groff_out(5). It describes its arc-drawing > command as: > > *Draw arc from current position to (h1, v1)+(h2, v2) with center at (h1, > > > v1);* > > However, gropdf.pl tells a different story. To quote line #2791:

Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread John Gardner
Fair enough. Well, the grops code worked for me too , actually. Thanks to everybody again for their help. =) On 9 May 2017 at 21:23, Deri James wrote: > On Tue 09 May 2017 13:55:38 John Gardner wrote: >

Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi John, > Looks like there's a mistake in groff_out(5). It describes its > arc-drawing command as: Da h1 v1 h2 v2⟨line-break⟩ Draw arc from current position to (h1, v1)+(h2, v2) with center at (h1, v1); then move the current position to the final point of the arc. CS

Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread John Gardner
> > *The documentation is correct. The code is wrong. Later code copied > earlier code.* Ugh, that's even more confusing. Looks like gropdf's comments could do with a clean-up: these lines had me confused as well: # do it in 4 pieces my $totang=($endang-$startang)/4; > # Now 1 piece > my $x0=

Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi John, > > In the groff source, adjust_arc_center() seems the culprit that many > > of the output devices call to mess with arc's calculations. > > Well... right and wrong way aside, I'm simply glad to have achieved > parity with grops/gropdf. CSTR 54 documents the DIT format, `Da' included. P

Re: [Groff] Problems with arcs and angles

2017-05-09 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> Can anyone shed light on why groff deviates from CSTR 54 theory and > historic practice? I guess it's simply a bug. It would be great if there were a test suite for the PIC to catch such errors... Werner

Re: [Groff] [groff] 01/01: Package `ghostscript' 9.21 renamed some fonts installed in `/usr/share/ghostscript/9.21/Resource/Font', e.g. URWGothicL-Demi renamed to URWGothic-Demi, and droped the instal

2017-05-09 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> commit 2b5a438e0c205a5f118b456db7438e35dab50e09 > Author: Bertrand Garrigues > Date: Mon May 8 21:46:03 2017 +0200 > > Package `ghostscript' 9.21 renamed some fonts installed in > `/usr/share/ghostscript/9.21/Resource/Font', e.g. URWGothicL-Demi > renamed to URWGothic-Demi, and d

Re: [Groff] [groff] 01/01: Package `ghostscript' 9.21 renamed some fonts installed in `/usr/share/ghostscript/9.21/Resource/Font', e.g. URWGothicL-Demi renamed to URWGothic-Demi, and droped the instal

2017-05-09 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi, Werner wrote: > Please note, however, that the first line of a commit message should > be exactly one line no longer than, say, 75 characters. See DISCUSSION in git-commit(1). (It's length is too short; Werner's right.) -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy