From: <br...@ph...> - 2006-09-04 22:15:23
|
Daniel J Sebald wrote: > Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote: > But that turns out to be the case, from the evidence I see. =20 You're misinterpreting the evidence. A sequence of examples doesn't= =20 prove a design. In other words, the success you saw is a random accident. You stress the point that you used the *defaults* (your emphasis) for all the terminals. And exactly there lies the problem: there is no such thing as a universal "default" for the X11 terminal's actual output window size. It can be overriden by a whole collection of mechanism, half of which outside the control of gnuplot, by design= =20 (thing app defaults, X11 window managers, auto-placement, ...). In= =20 other words, the problem is at least partly a bad choice of default= =20 window size for x11. But the problem is *not* that this default doesn't match the 4096x409= 6=20 terminal size. It's that it doesn't match the default h_tic and v_tic= =20 settings. The core issue is a missing feature: X11 doesn't update its h_tic and= =20 v_tics if the graph window changes size. > In all the terminals types that produce filled polygons that I have= =20 > examined, x11 is the only one for which the default produces an= =20 > asymmetric, football shaped object rather than a symmetric hexagon.= =20 And now I suggest you repeat that same exercise on but switch your= =20 screen resolution to 1024x768, and 1280x1024 (both stretched to=20 full-screen, no black bars around the picture). Look closely, and= =20 you'll find that all of a sudden, half of those formerly regular=20 hexagons are now distorted, too, in at least one of those modes. You're mistaking random coincidence for design. |