Amendments in calc-units.el

Amendments in calc-units.el

[Torsten Bronger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

Hallöchen!

I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el, in
the attached patch.

"pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the typographic
point (pt).  I think this is more practical since the latter is much
more significant for calc usage, and its current abbreviation "tpt"
isn't used outside calc.

Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
*the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).

Tschö,
Torsten.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Patch for calc-units.el --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1649 bytes --]

Index: calc-units.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lisp/calc/calc-units.el,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -c -r1.19 calc-units.el
*** calc-units.el	18 Sep 2005 12:42:35 -0000	1.19
--- calc-units.el	15 Oct 2005 17:22:04 -0000
***************
*** 59,66 ****
      ( fath    "6 ft"		     "Fathom" )
      ( u       "1 um"		     "Micron" )
      ( mil     "in/1000"	     "Mil" )
!     ( point   "in/72"		     "Point (1/72 inch)" )
!     ( tpt     "in/72.27"	     "Point (TeX conventions)" )
      ( Ang     "1e-10 m"	     "Angstrom" )
      ( mfi     "mi+ft+in"	     "Miles + feet + inches" )
  
--- 59,66 ----
      ( fath    "6 ft"		     "Fathom" )
      ( u       "1 um"		     "Micron" )
      ( mil     "in/1000"	     "Mil" )
!     ( bp      "in/72"		     "Big point (1/72 inch)" )
!     ( pt      "in/72.27"	     "Typographic point" )
      ( Ang     "1e-10 m"	     "Angstrom" )
      ( mfi     "mi+ft+in"	     "Miles + feet + inches" )
  
***************
*** 74,80 ****
      ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
      ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
      ( qt      "2 pt"		     "Quart" )
!     ( pt      "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
      ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
      ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
--- 74,80 ----
      ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
      ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
      ( qt      "2 pt"		     "Quart" )
!     ( pint    "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
      ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
      ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 74 bytes --]


-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus            ICQ 264-296-646

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:

> I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el, in
> the attached patch.
>
> "pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the typographic
> point (pt).  I think this is more practical since the latter is much
> more significant for calc usage, and its current abbreviation "tpt"
> isn't used outside calc.
>
> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).

It is pretty widespread, I think.

> ***************
> *** 74,80 ****
>       ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
>       ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
>       ( qt      "2 pt"		     "Quart" )
> !     ( pt      "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
>       ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
>       ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
>       ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
> --- 74,80 ----
>       ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
>       ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
>       ( qt      "2 pt"		     "Quart" )
> !     ( pint    "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
>       ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
>       ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
>       ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )

So a quart now is two typographical points?  Sorry, that does not
sound right.

Anyway, I think it unreasonable to work with gal, qt, but then require
"pint".  If gal and qt are the usual abbreviations, then I think the
normally used abbreviation for pint should also be used.  Sure, TeX
users would prefer to have pt and bp, but I don't think at the price
of making the Imperial system inconsistent.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Torsten Bronger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1257 bytes --]

Hallöchen!

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
>
>> I suggest two renamings of unit abbreviations in calc-units.el,
>> in the attached patch.
>>
>> "pt" should become "pint" in order to make room for the
>> typographic point (pt).  I think this is more practical since the
>> latter is much more significant for calc usage, and its current
>> abbreviation "tpt" isn't used outside calc.
>>
>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I
>> know).
>
> It is pretty widespread, I think.
>
>> [...]
>
> Anyway, I think it unreasonable to work with gal, qt, but then
> require "pint".  If gal and qt are the usual abbreviations, then I
> think the normally used abbreviation for pint should also be used.
> Sure, TeX users would prefer to have pt and bp, but I don't think
> at the price of making the Imperial system inconsistent.

Thanks to you and Miles for your input.  The most important "point"
is indeed the "1/72in" point.  Therefore, I attached a slightly
different proposal: Keep "tpt" and add "pt" as a synonym for
"point".

(If changes are adopted, I'll also send the corresponding patch for
the docs.)


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Patch for calc-units.el (second try) --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3046 bytes --]

Index: calc-units.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lisp/calc/calc-units.el,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -c -r1.19 calc-units.el
*** calc-units.el	18 Sep 2005 12:42:35 -0000	1.19
--- calc-units.el	16 Oct 2005 08:42:57 -0000
***************
*** 59,66 ****
      ( fath    "6 ft"		     "Fathom" )
      ( u       "1 um"		     "Micron" )
      ( mil     "in/1000"	     "Mil" )
!     ( point   "in/72"		     "Point (1/72 inch)" )
!     ( tpt     "in/72.27"	     "Point (TeX conventions)" )
      ( Ang     "1e-10 m"	     "Angstrom" )
      ( mfi     "mi+ft+in"	     "Miles + feet + inches" )
  
--- 59,67 ----
      ( fath    "6 ft"		     "Fathom" )
      ( u       "1 um"		     "Micron" )
      ( mil     "in/1000"	     "Mil" )
!     ( point   "in/72"		     "DTP point" )
!     ( pt      "point"		     "DTP point" )
!     ( tpt     "in/72.27"	     "Typographic point" )
      ( Ang     "1e-10 m"	     "Angstrom" )
      ( mfi     "mi+ft+in"	     "Miles + feet + inches" )
  
***************
*** 73,86 ****
      ( l       "1e-3 m^3"	     "*Liter" )
      ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
      ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
!     ( qt      "2 pt"		     "Quart" )
!     ( pt      "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
      ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
      ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( tbsp    "3 tsp"		     "Tablespoon" )
      ( tsp     "4.92892159375 ml"    "Teaspoon" )
!     ( vol     "tsp+tbsp+ozfl+cup+pt+qt+gal" "Gallons + ... + teaspoons" )
      ( galC    "4.54609 l"	     "Canadian Gallon" )
      ( galUK   "4.546092 l"	     "UK Gallon" )
  
--- 74,87 ----
      ( l       "1e-3 m^3"	     "*Liter" )
      ( L       "1e-3 m^3"	     "Liter" )
      ( gal     "4 qt"		     "US Gallon" )
!     ( qt      "2 pint"		     "Quart" )
!     ( pint    "2 cup"		     "Pint" )
      ( cup     "8 ozfl"		     "Cup" )
      ( ozfl    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( floz    "2 tbsp"		     "Fluid Ounce" )
      ( tbsp    "3 tsp"		     "Tablespoon" )
      ( tsp     "4.92892159375 ml"    "Teaspoon" )
!     ( vol     "tsp+tbsp+ozfl+cup+pint+qt+gal" "Gallons + ... + teaspoons" )
      ( galC    "4.54609 l"	     "Canadian Gallon" )
      ( galUK   "4.546092 l"	     "UK Gallon" )
  
***************
*** 146,154 ****
      ( hp      "745.7 W"	     "Horsepower" )
  
      ;; Temperature
!     ( K       nil                   "*Degree Kelvin"     K )
!     ( dK      "K"		     "Degree Kelvin"	  K )
!     ( degK    "K"		     "Degree Kelvin"	  K )
      ( dC      "K"		     "Degree Celsius"	  C )
      ( degC    "K"      	     "Degree Celsius"	  C )
      ( dF      "(5/9) K"	     "Degree Fahrenheit"  F )
--- 147,153 ----
      ( hp      "745.7 W"	     "Horsepower" )
  
      ;; Temperature
!     ( K       nil                   "*Kelvin"     K )
      ( dC      "K"		     "Degree Celsius"	  C )
      ( degC    "K"      	     "Degree Celsius"	  C )
      ( dF      "(5/9) K"	     "Degree Fahrenheit"  F )

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 249 bytes --]


P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin".  It was
included in a list I had sent to the then maintainer two years ago,
however, he seems to have missed this one.
-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus            ICQ 264-296-646

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
...
> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
...
>> Anyway, I think it unreasonable to work with gal, qt, but then
>> require "pint".  If gal and qt are the usual abbreviations, then I
>> think the normally used abbreviation for pint should also be used.
>> Sure, TeX users would prefer to have pt and bp, but I don't think
>> at the price of making the Imperial system inconsistent.
>
> Thanks to you and Miles for your input.  The most important "point"
> is indeed the "1/72in" point.  Therefore, I attached a slightly
> different proposal: Keep "tpt" and add "pt" as a synonym for
> "point".

The problems with this are:
 * It still breaks the gal-qt-pt conventions.  
 * I would think most people who know of pt as an abbreviation for
   point also know of it as an abbreviate for pint, while I doubt the
   opposite is true. 
 * The units program uses pt for pint; I doubt we want an
   abbreviation to mean one thing for the units program and another in 
   the Calc units package.  (There are currently a couple of places
   where this occurs; I'll fix them where approprate.  The units.dat
   file is an interesting read.)

> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin". 

Why?

Jay

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes:

>> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin".

Jay> Why?

There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.

(As an aside, I also agree that pt should remain pints.)

-JimC
-- 
James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos@jhcloos.com>

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes:
>
>>> P.S.: The patch also removes the "degree" for "Kelvin".
>
> Jay> Why?
>
> There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.

The question is whether its the business of calc to be convenient or
to educate.  Of course, K should be available as a unit of its own,
but I see no harm by degK being an alias.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Juri Linkov]

>> There is no such thing as degrees Kelvin, there are only Kelvins.
>
> The question is whether its the business of calc to be convenient or
> to educate.  Of course, K should be available as a unit of its own,
> but I see no harm by degK being an alias.

Here is what units.dat contains:

degK                    K         # "Degrees Kelvin" is forbidden usage.

i.e. it defines degK, but has a warning about its usage in comments.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Miles Bader]

2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de>:
> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).

I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...

Probably better to make "pt" / "point" mean postscript point, and add
"typopoint" or something for typographer's points (does anyone even
still use those now that postscript is so widespread?).  Btw where on
earth did the name "bp" come from???  I've never heard it before.

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de>:
>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>
> I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...
>
> Probably better to make "pt" / "point" mean postscript point, and add
> "typopoint" or something for typographer's points (does anyone even
> still use those now that postscript is so widespread?).  Btw where on
> earth did the name "bp" come from???  I've never heard it before.

TeX.  It is a "big point" in TeX, to distinguish it from the slightly
smaller typographic point 1/72.27 in.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de>:
>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>
> I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would using "point" for
PostScript point be less accurate?  Also, using "point" for point (of
whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps
"texpoint" for TeX point would be better.

Jay

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Miles Bader]

2005/10/19, Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu>:
> > I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would using "point" for
> PostScript point be less accurate?

I dunno; I did a bit of googling the last time I searched, and the
name "point" is a lot more vague than I previously thought -- there
are like 5 different kinds of "points" used historically, all of which
are annoyingly close to each other, but different enough to cause
problems.

However I think people _do_ use the term, and would be surprised if it
isn't understood.  If you're gonna pick something to resolve an
ambiguous term, your decision is inevitably going to be wrong for
somebody, but by picking the most commonly used definition, at least
you reduce the number of such cases.

[Maybe 25 years ago, the tex definition would have been the best
resolution, but I don't think that's true now.]

> Also, using "point" for point (of
> whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps
> "texpoint" for TeX point would be better.

Well you're probably right that it should be "pspoint", with an alias.
 [The common name for what tex uses seems to be "typographer's point"]

-miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:
...
>> Also, using "point" for point (of
>> whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps
>> "texpoint" for TeX point would be better.
>
> Well you're probably right that it should be "pspoint", with an alias.

That's a good idea, although I was thinking of "pt" vs "point" difference.

>  [The common name for what tex uses seems to be "typographer's point"]

According to the data file for the units program, the printer's point
(the same as typographer's point?) is precisely 0.013837 inches, while
the TeX point is 1/72.27 inches = 0.013837000138... inches.  Then the
units program cheerfully ignores the difference.  Makes sense,
perhaps.

Jay

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes:

> Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:
> ...
>>> Also, using "point" for point (of
>>> whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps
>>> "texpoint" for TeX point would be better.
>>
>> Well you're probably right that it should be "pspoint", with an alias.
>
> That's a good idea, although I was thinking of "pt" vs "point" difference.
>
>>  [The common name for what tex uses seems to be "typographer's point"]
>
> According to the data file for the units program, the printer's point
> (the same as typographer's point?) is precisely 0.013837 inches, while
> the TeX point is 1/72.27 inches = 0.013837000138... inches.  Then the
> units program cheerfully ignores the difference.  Makes sense,
> perhaps.

Not really.  The TeX dimensions happen to be all _rationally_ related
to the metric system and are exactly representable.

One should probably have all TeX dimensions be defined in the course
of those ratios: that makes it possible to use rational operations for
converting units between TeX and PostScript (for example).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> (JB) wrote:

>JB> According to the data file for the units program, the printer's point
>JB> (the same as typographer's point?) is precisely 0.013837 inches, while
>JB> the TeX point is 1/72.27 inches = 0.013837000138... inches.  Then the
>JB> units program cheerfully ignores the difference.  Makes sense,
>JB> perhaps.

Apparently what they call printer's point is the same as TeX's point (which
doesn't surprise me), but it is a different thing than Postscript's point.

In mm:
Postscript: 0.0352777777778
TeX: 0.0351459803515
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Piet van Oostrum]

>>>>> Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl> (PvO) wrote:

>PvO> In mm:
>PvO> Postscript: 0.0352777777778
>PvO> TeX: 0.0351459803515

Sorry, those were cm, not mm.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@cs.uu.nl>
URL: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~piet [PGP 8DAE142BE17999C4]
Private email: piet@vanoostrum.org

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Jay Belanger <belanger@truman.edu> writes:

> Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2005/10/16, Torsten Bronger <bronger@physik.rwth-aachen.de>:
>>> Secondly, "point" should be renamed "bp" (big point).  It's not
>>> *the* point after all (but an invention by Adobe, as far as I know).
>>
>> I suspect more calc users use postscript points than "real points"...
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would using "point" for
> PostScript point be less accurate?  Also, using "point" for point (of
> whatever kind) and "tpt" for TeX point lacks symmetry; perhaps
> "texpoint" for TeX point would be better.

It's too long to enter already.  It would be an idea to offer all TeX
dimensions with t prefixed:

tpt (TeX's point)
tpc (TeX's pica)
tcc (TeX's cicero)
tcm (TeX's cm.  Hm, seems unnecessary)
tbp (TeX's big point, same as point)
tsp (TeX's scaled point, collides with teaspoon. Too bad)

Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.

That's somewhat of a nuisance, since TeX users would probably like to
be able to work with calc without investing too much thought.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Miles Bader]

2005/10/19, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
> It's too long to enter already.  It would be an idea to offer all TeX
> dimensions with t prefixed:
...
> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.

I does seem interesting, and would be much more practical if you just
used "tex" as a prefix instead of "t".  [I don't think "texpt" is
annoying long to type, and it's _much_ more clear and much less likely
to conflict...]

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

> 2005/10/19, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>> It's too long to enter already.  It would be an idea to offer all TeX
>> dimensions with t prefixed:
> ...
>> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.
>
> I does seem interesting, and would be much more practical if you just
> used "tex" as a prefix instead of "t".  [I don't think "texpt" is
> annoying long to type, and it's _much_ more clear and much less likely
> to conflict...]

I'd hope that the prefix would be removed at least when yanking and
pasting in TeX mode.

The units in question are

pt = 100:7227 in  (point)
in = 254:100 cm   (inch)
pc = 12pt         (pica)
cm
mm
bp = 1:72 in      (big point, same as PostScript's idea of point)
dd = 1238:1157pt  (Didot point)
cc = 12dd         (cicero)
sp = 1:65536 pt   (scaled TeX point, smallest representable dimension
                   in TeX)

TeX also has dimensions ex and em, but those depend on the current
font size.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

>2005/10/19, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>> It's too long to enter already.  It would be an idea to offer all TeX
>> dimensions with t prefixed:
> ...
>> Seems like this scheme is not feasible, either.
>
> I does seem interesting, and would be much more practical if you just
> used "tex" as a prefix instead of "t".  [I don't think "texpt" is
> annoying long to type, and it's _much_ more clear and much less likely
> to conflict...]

That's a good idea.

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> I'd hope that the prefix would be removed at least when yanking and
> pasting in TeX mode.

You mean as in M-# y?  I don't know how easy that'd be, but it should
be doable. I suppose it should occur when Calc and the buffer being
yanked into are both in some form of TeX mode.

Jay

Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[Jay Belanger]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
...
> The units in question are
>
> pt = 100:7227 in  (point)
> in = 254:100 cm   (inch)
> pc = 12pt         (pica)
> cm
> mm
> bp = 1:72 in      (big point, same as PostScript's idea of point)
> dd = 1238:1157pt  (Didot point)
> cc = 12dd         (cicero)
> sp = 1:65536 pt   (scaled TeX point, smallest representable dimension
>                    in TeX)

These have been added, except in, cm and mm which were already there.
Currently the units functions result in floating point numbers (2 ft
is 24. in); that should probably eventually change.

Jay