henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (12/18/84)
> ... This would consist of things like 2x4s (I guess it is OK to > use imperial measurements now that it appears mandatory metrification > is being scrapped)... It's OK to say "2x4" regardless, since this is a *name*, not a measurement. There is nothing "2 inches by 4 inches" about a 2x4 (no, not even rough-sawn 2x4's are 2 inches by 4 inches nowadays). The existing metric-practice guides, including the CSA one, are quite explicit that names don't change when you go metric. -- "Make mine metric." Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/18/84)
>> ... This would consist of things like 2x4s (I guess it is OK to >> use imperial measurements now that it appears mandatory metrification >> is being scrapped)... > >It's OK to say "2x4" regardless, since this is a *name*, not a measurement. >There is nothing "2 inches by 4 inches" about a 2x4 (no, not even rough-sawn >2x4's are 2 inches by 4 inches nowadays). The existing metric-practice >guides, including the CSA one, are quite explicit that names don't change >when you go metric. >-- > "Make mine metric." > > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Even if the name did change, wouldn't "5 x 10" be as nice as "2 x 4"? Don't you hate 397gm cans of stuff? Why can't they restrict containers to reasonable numbers like 400gm? Make mine metric, too... MMM Club membership now open. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt