On 2011-10-18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:

t b r and l correspond to top, bottom, right, and left. The other two points are accessed throught t+ and t- etc. IIRC, for top and bottom, + corresponds to the right point and - to the left point; for left and right, + corresponds to the top point and - to the bottom point.

According to this, [tb+] should yield to the desired result. However, it produces the same output as [tb]. Marco

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

Am 18.10.2011 um 18:14 schrieb Marco:

...

On 2011-10-18 Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

t b r and l correspond to top, bottom, right, and left. The other two points are accessed throught t+ and t- etc. IIRC, for top and bottom, + corresponds to the right point and - to the left point; for left and right, + corresponds to the top point and - to the bottom point.

According to this, [tb+] should yield to the desired result. However, it produces the same output as [tb].

The order of arguments is now different in MkIV (bug?),

It is more likely that I did not recall the syntax correctly. Aditya

On 2011-10-18 Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

[…]

To be sure I looked for the correct input and also MkII expects the + and - before the location of the node but MkII had “n” as synonym for + which is now “m” in MkIV.

I see. Thanks for checking the sources. That means the syntax is as follows: -t t +t ---------------- +l | | +r | | l | | r | | -l | | -r | | ---------------- -b b +b I added a section to the wiki. Marco