Dear Peter,
thank you for your answer. Am Freitag, den 21.10.2011, 17:02 +0200 schrieb Peter Rolf: > I agree, this is confusing on the first sight. But scaling is not meant > as 'scaling to' a dimension. In fact is is just a simple multiplication. > The reason why it seems to work this way with > 'fullsquare' and such predefined paths is, that they have a 'neutral' > size/scale (bounding box size of filled path is (1pt,1pt)). So how can I find out what the dimension of the path of a function is? Not scaling it, it also looked pretty small, so I am guessing (1pt,1pt). > Multiplying such a path with (x,y) gives an object with size (1*x,1*y). > In general: if the bounding box of an object has the size (a,b) and you > scale it with (x,y), the resulting object has a size of (ax,by). That's > all the magic. but if you use numbers with a unit than it should not be multiplied but expanded to that value, should not it? Otherwise I am unsure how multiplication works with a unit. > I must admit that this wasn't clear to me before you came up with your > question. So thanks for that. :-) Thank you for your answer. As written above it is still not entirely clear to me. I hope you can remedy my last confusion. Thanks a lot, Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
