Re: Any new comments on the non-uniform scaling patch?

[Lars Clausen <lars raeder dk>]

On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 10:43 +0100, Marcel Toele wrote:
>

> In my defense, the DEFAULT_WIDTH and DEFAULT_HEIGHT are defined as
> 2.0, "whatever the current unit system in use". 
>
> Meaning, that custom shapes default to 2x2cm in europe and 2x2in. in
> the US.
> From this follows that the "default_scale", which is also taken as
> "just" a scalar value,
> adapts to the current unit system in use as well. 

Not so, it's 2x2cm everywhere.  All internal measurements are in cm.
It's only in the most recent version that there's even been any mention
of inches in the code, and that's only for some select properties.

> However, I'm investigating whether I can get rid of the dreaded
> DEFAULT_WIDTH/ 
> DEFAULT_HEIGHT, or at least have them only be applied as a fall back
> (to avoid functional regression).

I'd say having shapes that don't specify a size use the 2x2cm size is
perfectly fair.

-Lars