Ron Parker wrote:

>Personally, I think the current behavior is perfect: it allows you to use scale x*3
as >if it works that way, but it reminds you each time you do that that's not really
what >it's doing and we're just letting you get away with it.

I will accept that, with the final obeservation that, by virtue of the fact that it
is changing those 0s to 1s, it kind of is doing that. My point was, it should just
do that, in this specific case, without letting you know. But I can see your point,
and as I have said earlier, I realize that I have been a bit obstinate in pushing
this point, and will not comment further.

Post a reply to this message