Re: Bug in logarithmic minitics + suggested fix

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

Aapo Lankinen wrote:
> The first plot has the minitics on the logarithmic y-axis as it should;
> but the second plot with ytics having a longer step doesn't show any
> minitics at all.  I think the 10 minitics should be there as ordered,
> no?  

Not really.  '10 minitics' on a log-10 axis has generally been 
interpreted to mean the same as the default minitic placement, even 
though that's only 9 minitic intervals per decade.  What it should mean 
in case the  major tics are more than one decade apart is anyone's 
guess.  Your patch would place them at arithmetic intervals (1, 10, 20, 
30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100), the existing code *wants* to place 
them at geometric intervals (i.e. graphically equidistant, but at 
numerically funny places, integer powers of 100^0.1), but fails.

In a nutshell, I concede there's a bug, but I think you've found the 
wrong fix.

> I'm not sure why there was a (step <= 1.5) condition - I needed to
> remove it to allow larger ytics steps than 1.5 (the example has step =
> 2.0).  

I would guess that was just because the existing code knows it would 
fail in that case, and thus doesn't try to continue.