Re: Bug #1503114

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

Ethan Merritt wrote:
> May I propose that we just drop this patch [*], and put the
> effort into discussion of more serious issues?
> 
> At a minimum, we need to resolve:
> 
>   - Reconciling the docs and the code with regard to the various
>     flavors of missing/undefined data points

It sounds as though we're willing to redefine behavior slightly on this, right?

There is a more straightforward way of doing this and fairly easy fix.  In fact, I'd propose that so long as we are going to fix this, go with multiple definitions

set undefined "Inf" "-Inf"
set missing "N/A"
?? set notnumber "NaN"

right away.  I think there is some utility to that.

Controllable behavior of plotting based upon point class could be for the future.


>   - Does Windows truly require the PostScript prolog files to
>     be moved back into the driver source?

Well, maybe not.  But if there is any chance of too much confusion with the patch because of something we haven't tested much yet, perhaps move the code back into post.trm and immediately move it back out after 4.2.

What is the amount of confidence at this point regarding the possibility of a lot of bug reports "postscript not viewable"?

...

And how about bug [ 1488168 ]?  Hans, I think that one is ready to go.  Ethan and I can discuss and change mouse behavior after that (probably a simple change), or just leave it as is for 4.2.

Dan