Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!tuewsd!wsinkees
From: wsinkees@lso.win.tue.nl (Kees Huizing)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Uniform Coordinate Space (was Re: 72.27! etc.)
Message-ID: <909@tuewsd.lso.win.tue.nl>
Date: 7 Feb 90 14:34:44 GMT
References: <137@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <9001220213.aa05139@blackbox.gore.com> <152@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <128@heaven.COM> <846@tuewsd.lso.win.tue.nl> <1745@adobe.UUCP>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 19

In reply to my remark that "scale x x" is not a satisfactory way to change
your coordinate system, chesnutt@adobe.com (Stan Chesnutt) writes:

>In article <846@tuewsd.lso.win.tue.nl> wsinkees@lso.win.tue.nl (Kees Huizing) writes:
...deleted...
>If a uniform scaling system (and thereby uniform measurement system) is
>NOT what you want, please explain further in a follow-up exactly what
>you are trying to do.

In principle, you're right.  But in practice, you may want to use the
default linewidth and then, if you scale, all lines are suddenly too
fat for normal use.  This holds also for other sizes that have an
initial, reasonable value.  I think that it is no coincedence that
Adobe used *filled* boxes in the example to illustrate scaling! (Red Book
page 68)
						Kees
-- 
Kees Huizing - Eindhoven Univ of Techn - Dept Math & Comp Sc - The Netherlands
DOMAIN: wsinkees@win.tue.nl    BITNET: wsdckeesh@heitue5    FAX: +31-40-436685