Dear Peter,


thank you for your answer.

Am Freitag, den 21.10.2011, 17:02 +0200 schrieb Peter Rolf:

> I agree, this is confusing on the first sight. But scaling is not meant
> as 'scaling to' a dimension. In fact is is just a simple multiplication.
> The reason why it seems to work this way with
> 'fullsquare' and such predefined paths is, that they have a 'neutral'
> size/scale (bounding box size of filled path is (1pt,1pt)).

So how can I find out what the dimension of the path of a function is?
Not scaling it, it also looked pretty small, so I am guessing (1pt,1pt).

> Multiplying such a path with (x,y) gives an object with size (1*x,1*y).
> In general: if the bounding box of an object has the size (a,b) and you
> scale it with (x,y), the resulting object has a size of (ax,by). That's
> all the magic.

but if you use numbers with a unit than it should not be multiplied but
expanded to that value, should not it? Otherwise I am unsure how
multiplication works with a unit.

> I must admit that this wasn't clear to me before you came up with your
> question. So thanks for that. :-)

Thank you for your answer. As written above it is still not entirely
clear to me. I hope you can remedy my last confusion.


Thanks a lot,

Paul