Re: Bugs in new key placement code

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

Ethan A Merritt wrote:

> 
> By which I mean that the key box got smaller.
> It was originally the correct size to contain the
> set of titles.  But for some reason this command
> causes it to shrink vertically, so the final title
> now appears below the key box. That's got to be
> a bug, pure and simple.  Once we figure out how big
> the box needs to be, it should be drawn at that size
> no matter where on the graph window it sits.

Yes, I saw that.  I could make a guess why the box is too small... I don't know, maybe because the way things are laid out the key code thinks there isn't much room so chooses a small box to fit within its allotted space.


>>And now it is the same sort of thing with margin key placement in 3d. 
> 
> 
> I'm not worrying overly much about the placement.
> It's the fact that the *size* is not calculated consistently.
> Most of the time it is correct, but some key placement options
> seem to break the size calculation.

In 3d.  I've tried this for "plot" and the box is correct.

The point is, there are two sets of key code.  That for 3d needs some fixes.

>>Because my personal feeling is that 2d/3d should be laid out the same in 
>>terms of margins, so that code should be unified.
> 
> 
> I disagree, but not strongly.  

Why?

> Anyhow, that's not what I'm complaining about.

I know.  But I'm inquiring with people if from a coding standpoint they feel there should be two different sets of layout or just one.  (I think Hans pointed out a long time ago that graph3d.c came from graphics.c by tagging a "3d" to most of the functions within.)

If someone can argue the layout should be kept separate, fine.  But I can't see a good reason to do so, and the points of consistency (for the user's sake) and ease of maintaining code (for the programmer's sake) are what I'm emphasizing.

The question is:  Put effort into touching up the 3d keys, or put effort into unifying plot layout, effectively fixing 3d keys?

I'm guessing Ethan would rather see those 3d keys fixed than attempt to unify 3d/2d key code.

> 
> Since the time I originally sent this message, the centering code
> seems to have been fixed.  Intentionally or unintentionally - I don't know.
> But the incorrect centering I pointed to originally is no longer there
> in current cvs.

OK.

Dan