On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:54:02AM +0000, Joseph Wright wrote: >On 26/01/2015 09:55, Alexander Grahn wrote: >> Good morning, >> >> I have just noticed that \box_resize_to_ht:Nn forces the given box >> into a square instead of scaling the width appropriately. The other, >> \box_resize_to_wd:Nn works as expected as it preserves the original >> aspect ratio: >> >> \documentclass{article} >> \usepackage{expl3} >> \usepackage{graphicx} >> \usepackage{mwe} >> >> \begin{document} >> \newsavebox\picbox >> \savebox\picbox{\includegraphics{example-image-a}} >> >> \typeout{orig. size: \the\wd\picbox\space X \the\ht\picbox} >> >> \ExplSyntaxOn >> \box_resize_to_ht:Nn\picbox{60pt} >> \ExplSyntaxOff >> \typeout{\string\box_resize_to_ht:Nn \the\wd\picbox\space X \the\ht\picbox} >> >> \savebox\picbox{\includegraphics{example-image-a}} >> \ExplSyntaxOn >> \box_resize_to_wd:Nn\picbox{60pt} >> \ExplSyntaxOff >> \typeout{\string\box_resize_to_wd:Nn \the\wd\picbox\space X \the\ht\picbox} >> >> \end{document} >> >> Kind regards, >> Alexander >> > >Logged as #202 (https://github.com/latex3/svn-mirror/issues/202). I see >where the issue is: fix coming up. Is an 'urgent' release of expl3 >required to deal with this? Thanks! I think there is no rush with updating expl3. Just keep with the planned schedule. >BTW, I assume that the resize functions are useful. Do the current >interfaces make sense: they are down as 'experimental' but I do wonder >if they should get moved to 'stable'. In my opinion the set of \box_resize_* functions is complete, as it allows for independently resizing width and [total]height (while, if necessary, making use of \box_[wd|ht]:N for the dimension to keep unchanged), as well as for resizing one of width or [total]height with preserved aspect ratio. Thanks a lot for providing the functions! Moving them to stable is up to your decision. Kind regards, Alexander