Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

Torsten Bronger <address@hidden> writes:
...
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
...
>> Anyway, I think it unreasonable to work with gal, qt, but then
>> require "pint".  If gal and qt are the usual abbreviations, then I
>> think the normally used abbreviation for pint should also be used.
>> Sure, TeX users would prefer to have pt and bp, but I don't think
>> at the price of making the Imperial system inconsistent.
>
> Thanks to you and Miles for your input.  The most important "point"
> is indeed the "1/72in" point.  Therefore, I attached a slightly
> different proposal: Keep "tpt" and add "pt" as a synonym for
> "point".

The problems with this are:
 * It still breaks the gal-qt-pt conventions.  
 * I would think most people who know of pt as an abbreviation for
   point also know of it as an abbreviate for pint, while I doubt the
   opposite is true. 
 * The units program uses pt for pint; I doubt we want an
   abbreviation to mean one thing for the units program and another in 
   the Calc units package.  (There are currently a couple of places
   where this occurs; I'll fix them where approprate.  The units.dat
   file is an interesting read.)

> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin". 

Why?

Jay