Re: Amendments in calc-units.el

[David Kastrup]

Torsten Bronger <address@hidden> 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