[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic
From: |
Keith Marshall |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:15:11 +0000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.1 |
On Thursday 20 March 2008 18:31, Y T wrote:
> To me it is perfectly natural that
> line from 1,1 then up 1
> is different from
> line then up 1
Well yes, they are different in the sense that the former explicitly
moves to point (1,1), while the latter simply starts plotting from the
current position, wherever that may be. Other than that, they are the
same: draw a line segment of implicit length in the current direction;
follow that with a second line segment, of explicit length 1 unit, in
the upward direction.
> In the first case, there is a very clear intuitive specification of a
> path that starts at 1,1 and then goes up 1 -- it is not ambiguous.
No, it isn't ambiguous. However, you make the assumption that the
implicit length of a line segment is zero units; in pic, this isn't so.
What would you expect this minimal example to produce?
.PS
line
.PE
Regards,
Keith.
- [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/03/10
- Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Y T, 2008/03/19
- Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/03/20
- Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/03/20
- RE: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Y T, 2008/03/20
- Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic,
Keith Marshall <=
- RE: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Y T, 2008/03/20
- Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Keith Marshall, 2008/03/21
- [Groff] problem with pic, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/03/22
- [Groff] Re: problem with pic, Brian Kernighan, 2008/03/22
- RE: [Groff] problem with pic, Y T, 2008/03/22
Re: [Groff] Fw: problem with pic, Werner LEMBERG, 2008/03/20