[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug in pic regarding lines and corners
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug in pic regarding lines and corners |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:02:07 +0100 (CET) |
> In groff, the .ne, .nw, .se and .sw corners of a line are all placed
> at the start of a line. I don't have access to the original pic but
> I do have access to the Plan 9 pic which places these four corners
> at the centre of the line.
This behaviour is basically unspecified but see below for Dwight
Aplevich's answer (he is the author of dpic).
> However, since these corners do not make much sense in the context
> of a line, maybe this cannot be considered a bug.
Exactly.
Werner
======================================================================
1. To state the obvious, any definition of the compass corners (other
than .start and .end) for the potentially multi-segment linear
objects line, move, arrow, and spline must be arbitrary because the
corner points are not unique, even for a single segment. The
comment that such arbitrary behavior cannot be considered a bug
seems correct. One is left only with the Principle of Least
Astonishment.
2. ATT pic returns the start of a line for corners, the same as gpic.
Dpic attempts something a bit more elaborate, which is to set the
coordinates x,y to the start and then loop over the segments of the
line with the following test for .ne, for example:
if ((endpos.ypos > y) and (endpos.xpos >=x))
or ((endpos.ypos >=y) and (endpos.xpos > x))
then
begin
x := endpos.xpos;
y := endpos.ypos
end
3. The GNU manual defines compass points only for closed objects but
I've received emails from new users attempting to apply them to
open objects, so a few additional words deprecating their use might
be in order. I've changed the dpic documentation slightly.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Possible bug in pic regarding lines and corners,
Werner LEMBERG <=