>At 13.11 -0400 1998.08.03, Mark Manning wrote: >>Anyway, if you know that a 9pt font is no large than 7 dots across then >>you have a rough estimate of just how wide any given line will be. But >>there is one more step to this. Certain letters are wider than others. >>Specifically, "m" and "M" are about the widest characters with "w" and >>"W" being up there with them. So if for each time you see an "m" or a >>"w" you add half again as much (ie: for 5 you add 3 and for 7 you add 4) >>on to the number of dots across a string will take you are assured of >>almost always getting the width the right size. > >In old-school journalism, layout editors would use a similar process. Back >in the Day, I could tell you how wide a headline would be on a page just by >looking at the letters in a word processor. My professor had us memorize >relative widths of all the letters, capital and lowercase. We also walked >uphill in the snow both ways ... Well, several years ago, I had to write a set of routines that would produce a data set on the page. I knew that the WIDTH would be fine, but I didn't know how many data points I had until I had them. In order to make sure that I could fit the entire data set on one page, in two columns, I multiplied the char height by the number of rows I had. If it was too big, I divided the output font size in half. Repeat. Effective, in a way. Certainly, I wasn't going to be the one who had to read the hardcopy (and the potential size of the datasets was limited such that it wouldn't ever get TOO small ;-) -jeff lowrey ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch