Martin, the following primitives are not documented. Could you please comment a status? \pdfpxdimen \pdffirstlineheight \pdflastlinedepth \pdfeachlinedepth \pdfeachlineheight \pdfstrcmp, \pdfmatch % will be replaced by luatex? \pdfretval anything else? Best, -- Pawe/l Jackowski P.Jackowski@gust.org.pl
2006/6/18, Paweł Jackowski
the following primitives are not documented. Could you please comment a status?
\pdfpxdimen \pdffirstlineheight \pdflastlinedepth \pdfeachlinedepth \pdfeachlineheight
Thanh's experimental?
\pdfstrcmp, \pdfmatch % will be replaced by luatex?
Experimental.
\pdfretval
Nice concept, but nobody it... Experimental.
anything else?
Nothing I can think of. But I'm probably missing something... Best Martin
Martin Schröder wrote:
2006/6/18, Paweł Jackowski
: the following primitives are not documented. Could you please comment a status?
\pdfpxdimen
This one was probably first proposed by me. It attaches concrete meaning to statements using the new 'px' dimension specifier, like: \pdfpxdimen=87380 % = 96dpi \hsize=400px Greetings, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Martin Schr�der wrote:
2006/6/18, Pawe� Jackowski
: the following primitives are not documented. Could you please comment a status?
\pdfpxdimen
This one was probably first proposed by me. It attaches concrete meaning to statements using the new 'px' dimension specifier, like:
\pdfpxdimen=87380 % = 96dpi \hsize=400px
the px was introduced to permits html-like dimensions (in a simlar fashion a percentage was discussed: \dimen0=24.5% with % having catcode 11 or 12) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
This one was probably first proposed by me. It attaches concrete meaning to statements using the new 'px' dimension specifier, like:
\pdfpxdimen=87380 % = 96dpi \hsize=400px
? In 96dpi resolution, one pixel is to be interpreted as 72 * 65781 / 96 that makes 0.75bp (49336sp). It seems that you calculated as 96 * 65536 / 72 Your mistake or I miss the intention? -- Pawe/l Jackowski P.Jackowski@gust.org.pl
participants (4)
-
Hans Hagen
-
Martin Schröder
-
Paweł Jackowski
-
Taco Hoekwater