Re: Argh: Why are arrows clipped to the graph?

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Harald Harders wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> 
>>The thing is, in PostScript I don't think
>>one has to worry at all about plotting beyond the "view port".  (Sorry,
>>P.S. terminology isn't fresh in my mind right now.)  It automatically
>>takes care of that, doesn't it?  Why impose some inferior clipping
>>method?
> 
> 
> No, not really automatically. But it is fairly easy to define a clipping
> path inside the produced Postscript file. Thus, only for Postscript we
> would not have this problem. But the problem also applies for other
> terminals. Try

I don't know if it is even that complicated.  Certainly one can do that.  But I'm constantly making the mistake of creating a plot half off screen in ghostview, then I expand out to some other page size beside "encapsulated" and there is the rest of the plot.

> 
> set size 2,2
> set terminal png
> set output 'asdf.png'
> plot sin(x)
> set output
> 
> Have of the tic marks are missing.

Hmm.  Not right of course, but this seems as though it may be a different bug.  I see all the tic marks, but the annotation is what is missing.  Furthermore, it is only the non-negative numbers that are missing (probably the key to the bug).  But wouldn't the non-negative numbers take up less space than the negative numbers?  And if so, wouldn't those extend toward or past the edge _less_ than the negative numbers.  Anyone?

> 
>>Also, write a nicer do_arrow(), as Ethan suggests.  I think I could do
>>it fairly easily, but I simply don't have time now.  It would have to
>>wait until after the holidays.
> 
> 
> What do you want to improve? For me, the Postscript arrows are good
> enough.

I'd thought I'd read in the thread somewhere that better PostScript arrows clipped at the edge of the canvas were desired.  Sorry.

> 
> 
>>[...]  Believe it or not,
>>PostScript can have a viewing angle for rectangular images.  I think for
>>now, the generic pixel (parallelogram) by pixel (parallelogram) method
>>will have to do.
> 
> 
> Yes, of course. Postscript can do nearly everything except translucent
> objects.

(Really?  I'd been guessing, or hoping, it would.  Oh well.)

 For me, it would be much more interesting to enable gnuplot to
> read in common picture files as jpg or png.

Noted.  (And list members should note.)  The capability to do so exists as part of the code.  But there is debate on whether to allow this.

Dan