Re: z_floor and z_ceiling (was Re: various observations)

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

Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> On Saturday 20 May 2006 04:13 pm, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> 
>>>you can accomplish the same thing by saying
>>>	set xyplane at func(GPVAL_Z_MIN,GPVAL_Z_MAX)
>>
>>I don't totally follow what "func" does.
> 
>   See below
> 
>>The idea of a relative placement of the xyplane isn't bad.
> 
>   It is not necessary
> 
> 
>>if I want the xyplane 20% below the z-axis I type 0.2 
>>and if I want the xyplane 20% above the z-axis I type -1.2. 
> 
> 
> Ugh.  Too confusing.  I'd rather do:
> 
>   set xyplane at GPVAL_Z_MAX + 1.2*(GPVAL_Z_MIN - GPVAL_Z_MAX)
>   set xyplane at GPVAL_Z_MIN + 1.2*(GPVAL_Z_MAN - GPVAL_Z_MIN)

A value of 0 gets us (GPVAL_Z_MAX + GPVAL_Z_MIN)/2, i.e., half way between.  A value of 1 gets us either GPVALE_Z_MIN or GPVAL_Z_MAX.

OK, I think that is sort of in the -1:0:1 (bottom:middle:top) category.  Well, the agreement is that 0 feels like a natural value for the xyplane to land at the center of the z-axis.

You'd rather have the user spell out the formula using "at" as opposed to just giving a number?  That's what you're saying, right?

Dan