On Sunday 27 August 2006 22:09, Eric Firing wrote:
> Darren Dale wrote:
> > A while back, I put some effort into rendering an offset ticklabel, which
> > allowed the user to do something like
> >
> > plot(linspace(10100, 10200, 100))
> >
> > and the plot would look like a plot from 0 to 100
Darren Dale wrote:
> On Sunday 27 August 2006 22:09, Eric Firing wrote:
>> Darren Dale wrote:
>>> A while back, I put some effort into rendering an offset ticklabel, which
>>> allowed the user to do something like
>>>
>>> plot(linspace(10100, 10200, 100))
>>>
>>> and the plot would look lik
On 8/27/06, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know anything about it what happened to the code, but I will
> > say that +- 6% autoscaling is better than tight bounds for many kinds
> > of plots. Like a scatter plot. It doesn't look good if some of your
Bill Baxter wrote:
>
> I don't know anything about it what happened to the code, but I will
> say that +- 6% autoscaling is better than tight bounds for many kinds
> of plots. Like a scatter plot. It doesn't look good if some of your
> points are right on the axes, with their marker cut in half
Darren Dale wrote:
> A while back, I put some effort into rendering an offset ticklabel, which
> allowed the user to do something like
>
> plot(linspace(10100, 10200, 100))
>
> and the plot would look like a plot from 0 to 100, with a "+10100"
> rendered in a new label near the far
On 8/28/06, Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A while back, I put some effort into rendering an offset ticklabel, which
> allowed the user to do something like
>
> plot(linspace(10100, 10200, 100))
>
> and the plot would look like a plot from 0 to 100, with a "+10100"
> rendered
