Re: envelope
"Daniel H. Luecking" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.tex.metapost |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Nicola,
I should have added that there has been a long-standing bug in
envelope and the related withpen operator. A classical
example is
path P;
pen A;
P:=(0,0){up}..(100,0){down}..cycle;
A:=pensquare scaled 10;
draw P withpen A;
That still seems to exhibit the bug (at least in metapost 1.9991 of TeX Live 2016).
Also, one needs to do
fill (envelope A of P) .. (envelop A of reverse P)..cycle
to get the effect of
draw P withpen A.
Cheers,
Daniel H. Luecking [[email protected]]
Department of Mathematical Sciences
1 University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR, USA 72701-1201
________________________________________
From: metapost <[email protected]> on behalf of Nicola <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 5:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [metapost] envelope
On 2016-09-16 07:06:19 +0000, Hans Hagen said:
> On 9/15/2016 8:27 PM, Daniel H. Luecking wrote:
>> Nicola:
>>
>> The syntax is
>> envelope <polygonal pen> of <path primary>
>>
>> For example,
>> path p;
>> p := envelope pensquare of (up--left);
>>
>> It returns the path which, when filled, produces the effect of stroking
>> the pen along the path. Elliptical pens (e.g., pencircle) produce an error.
>>
>> Stroking an elliptical pen is simply passed on to PostScript. But polygonal
>> pens (inherited from metafont) require this as a workaround.
>>
>> I deduced this by a little trial and error based on some descriptions in
>> the web source mp.w.
>
> Here's what happens in the result.
>
> [snip]
Thanks for the illuminating examples!
Nicola
--
http://tug.org/metapost/
--
http://tug.org/metapost/