On 3/08/2014 10:07 am, Juraj Fedel wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Gregory Pittman wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 12:58 PM, Jos? Antonio Rocha wrote:
>>> In Scripter console:
>>>
>>> print pt
>>> result:
>>> 1.0
>>>
>>> print p
>>> result:
>>> 1.0
>>>
>>
>> After a little fishing, I can find this in units.cpp, starting at line 38:
>>
>> // PT, MM, IN, P, CM,
>> C, ?, %
>> double ratio[] = { 1.0, 25.4/72.0, 1.0/72.0, 1.0, 2.54/72.0,
>> 25.4/72.0/4.512, 1.0, 1.0 };
>> // double ratio[] = { 1.0, 25.4/72.0, 1.0/72.0, 1.0/12.0, 2.54/72.0,
>> 25.4/72.0/4.512, 1.0, 1.0 };
>> return ratio[index];
>>
>> What you see here is that the line with the correct ratio has been
>> commented out for some reason.
>>
>> I changed the code to fix the ratio, and it compiles and /seems/ to work
>> Ok (nothing seems broken so far). This fixes the result you get in the
>> console.
>>
>> I'm reluctant to commit this, not being one of the devs, so we'll wait
>> for their feedback.
>>
>> Greg
>
> I was looking at units.cpp file recently and noticed this was not fixed
> yet. There was surely a reason to comment out the correct data, I am
> wandering what it was? My guess is that nobody is using pica as units
> (including me) and this bug (if it is a bug) remaind unnoticed.
>
> As an addition: to me it seems that last two members does not belog to
> this array as they represent different measurement than the rest. All
> are measurig lenght, "?" represent angle (is it in radian or degrees?)
> and "%" is pure number without dimension.
>
There's no bug here. Picas are just points, displayed differently, so we
changed to using a 1:1
ratio in unit conversion.
Craig
