On 2020-06-17 5:53 am, David Kastrup wrote:
Aaron Hill writes:
On 2020-06-17 1:35 am, Peter Toye wrote:
Robin,
Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result
that I wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it!
A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair,
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2020-06-17 1:35 am, Peter Toye wrote:
>> Robin,
>> Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result
>> that I wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it!
>> A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair, but the
>> description describes i
On 2020-06-17 1:35 am, Peter Toye wrote:
Robin,
Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result
that I wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it!
A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair, but the
description describes it as a distance, which I'd have th
Robin,
Thanks. Fair enough. I guessed and experimented and got the result that I
wanted. But I'm not quite sure how I managed it!
A problem I had with minimum-X-extent is that it's a pair, but the description
describes it as a distance, which I'd have thought was a single number!
Best regards,
