Re: bug in terminals affected by 'set size'

[Harald H. <h.h...@tu...>]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Ethan Merritt wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 October 2005 10:03 am, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with Ethan for bitmap terminals, but for postscript,
> > isn't 'set size 2,2' the only way to get a postscript file twice as large
> > as the default size?
>
> What exactly do you mean by "twice as large"?

[...]

> In general I would say the better choice is to select eps
> output, and then scale the resulting eps figure to whatever
> size you like in the final document.  But perhaps I am
> misunderstanding the intended use.

Definitely not. If you want to have consistent plots in a document, you
really should use the same linewidth and the same font size. Thus, all
plots in a document should be scaled by the same amount while of course
not scaling is most elegant. For example \includegraphics{figure} is more
elegant than \includegraphics[scale=2]{figure}.

And I do not see a reason why gnuplot shall not be able to generate plots
with a size larger than 1 x 1. If it is valid to reduce the size of a plot
by using 'set size' before 'set terminal' (which has been agreed in a
former discussion where I complained about cropped arrows in splots larger
than 1 x 1), an increase of the size to a measure larger than 1 x 1 should
also be possible. For the arrow bug, I have a patch that still seems to
work for me (I haven't tested it since a long time), patch #1104264. But
for the bug concerning the labels, I also do not have a solution.

I still do not understand the arguments why a plot larger than 1 x 1
should not be used. It seems ignorant to me. The bug also does not apply
to pixel based plots if you want to have the same font sizes and
linewidths in two different plots with a different size.

It should be easy to adapt my patch also to labels.

Best regards
Harald

-- 
Harald Harders
h.h...@tu...
http://www.harald-harders.de