Re: Bug #1503114

[<br...@ph...>]

Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote:
>> Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> My point here is that I think there is an inherent amount of visual=
=20
> plotting information that a person can view.  I'm confortable with =
the=20
> idea of limits on resolution.

The idea of such limits is obviously correct.  The problems start whe=
n=20
you try to fix those limits to an actual value, and use it.  The choi=
ce=20
is so hard because there is no single such limit --- its choice is=
=20
arbitrary.

> The idea would be to reasonably catch the situation where the tic=
=20
> interval is computed as 1/3 =3D 0.33333333333 and then the round ou=
tward=20
> test does something (after arithmetic) like deciding  0.99999999999=
9 <=20
> 1.0 because of rounding.

That is a non-issue, because autoscaling never picks a tick interval =
of=20
1/3.  It picks power-of-ten multiples of 1, 2 or 5.

> OK.  Did you want to change the demos and set the ranges in a few=
=20
> cases? =20

I'm not even convinced that any change is necessary for this at all.
A few tweaks to the demos would be about the maximum I would see as=
=20
useful here.