Suggestion:
Short form of 'inch' shall be 'in' (2 letters) not 'i' (1 letter)
I would also change full word 'inch/inches' to short 'in' if it uses together with other short form of units, e.g. 'cm,mm'.
-canvas w h pos : Resize canvas
w h can be percent (ex: -canvas 100% 200%)
w h can be cm (ex: -canvas 100cm 200cm)
w h can be mm (ex: -canvas 100mm 200mm)
w h can be inches (ex: -canvas 100i 200i)
-resize w h : Scale width-height
w h can be percent (ex: -resize 100% 200%)
w h can be cm (ex: -resize 100cm 200cm)
w h can be mm (ex: -resize 100mm 200mm)
w h can be inches (ex: -resize 100i 200i)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
user0 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:45 amShort form of 'inch' shall be 'in' (2 letters) not 'i' (1 letter)
I would also change full word 'inch/inches' to short 'in' if it uses together with other short form of units, e.g. 'cm,mm'.
user0 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 11:45 amShort form of 'inch' shall be 'in' (2 letters) not 'i' (1 letter)
I would also change full word 'inch/inches' to short 'in' if it uses together with other short form of units, e.g. 'cm,mm'.
I support this request.
Yes, for 'MP...
But for NConvert, changing the switch (200i --> 200in) would break any existing scripts unless both 200i or 200in are supported; in a switch there is in any case no real reason for in to be used, the switch is as defined in the Help file.
cday wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:07 am
..there is in any case no real reason for in to be used
Well, I would consider it more a bug rather than a suggestion to be honest, as nobody call inch an i, apart from Pierre
Sometimes clarity prevails over some minor backward compatibility.
Also there are some standards that determines short form for inch, e.g.:
- ISO 80000 "Quantities and units"
- ASME-Y14.38 "Abbreviations and Acronyms for Use on Drawings and Related Documents"
In the NConvert Help file, inches is already correctly used in the description of the option, but in the case of command line software the designer assigns the often cryptic form of the code term. In this case, I agree that in would probably have been a better choice.
But the practical problem is that changing the code term now would, unless both i and in are supported, break any existing script that an NConvert user may have created if they update their NConvert version, as they may well at some point, which could waste a lot of their time.