imprecisions after transformations

[Flusi100-users]

this is a bulked problem, i hope that all aspects
belong together and i can describe them comprehensible.
for all steps a grid and parameters have to be set:
document settings
a) show grid, snapnodes to grid: ON
b) grid unit px (think that's not relevant)
b) spacing x,y: 1,0000
c) snap units px (think should be same es grid units)
d) snap distance: 1,0000
e) guides: no snapping
inkscape settings
f)transforms/scale stroke width: OFF
now insert an object:
g) now draw a simple square with 5x5 px and a stroke
width of 1 px
h) unmark object (click in background), then F1 and
mark it again

now you see W=6,000 and H=6,000 and the coodinates X, Y
with values like *.500 in the tool control menu. till
now everything is all right, as you can expect when you
work with grids and snap in, but:
i) scale now sqare to a rectangle in X or Y direction
using the scaling arrows

now have a look at the too control menu! depending on
the direction, in which you have done the scaling, X
and W (or Y and H) suddenly show values others than *.
500 or *.000 - that must not be possible if it want to
snap the nodes on the 1x1 px grid.

afterwards you can „play“ with transforming the object
within a small scale toggling the edges off and on the
grid to bring it back to appropriate dimensions and
coordinates.

if you scale the object a lot, you can see the stroke
changing in its width before you release the
mousebutton. afterwards inkscape seems to recalculate
the resulting object dimensions and sets back the
stroke width to ist original value (due to f). i think
that this recalculation could cause those
imprecisions.

there's a method, to transform shapes without breaking
gridsnappings: with the resize handles. but i think
that the scaling function should show the same results
with the previously made settings.

similar effects occure, if you (for example) exclude
two objects, which are initial exact in grid. therefor
i found no efficient solution!

for many users this might be a disfigurement. but for
me it is unfortunately a reason to furthermore generate
professional drawings with commercial tools.

[Buliabyak-users (buliabyak-users)]

To me, (1) scaling by the arrow handles, using mouse, ON THE
CANVAS is imprecise, while (2) scaling with the numeric
fields ON THE TOOLBAR is perfect. Is this what you're
saying? It seems so, though the terms you use are confusing.
Please clarify.

[Flusi100-users (flusi100-users)]

I thought detailed discribing would be more inambiguos
(sorry for my bad english). But you've got it: scaling by
arrow handles using the mouse is imprecise (nodes snap to
grid, but not correct). Also path operations (for example
excluding) lead to imprecising impacts to nodes, which were
correctly snapped on grid before operation.

[Buliabyak-users (buliabyak-users)]

fixed in cvs