|
From: Ben A. <bpa...@ma...> - 2009-02-13 12:42:29
|
On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:53 AM, Timothée Lecomte wrote: > Ben Abbott wrote: >> On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Petr Mikulik wrote: >> >> >>>> hmmmm. I was not aware the mouse coordinates could be toogled on >>>> and off. >>>> What are the default hot-keys? >>>> >>>> If the mouse coordinates did not extend the y-size, the hassle of >>>> accounting for it would be more convenient. >>>> >>> It is even worse ... the "wxt" terminal has icon bar which also >>> extends the >>> plot area. The "Qt" terminal may be even different. Therefore, >>> set term wxt|x11 size nnn,nnn >>> plot x >>> !xwininfo >>> show different numbers. You can find that >>> set term x11|wxt size nnn,nnn >>> means the size of the graph-canvas area, not the full x11 window. >>> >>> IMHO, Octave does not need to know the size of the window, does it? >>> Is it really useful for any practical case? I don't think so. >>> And if user changes >>> set(gfc, 'position', [....]) >>> and you pass these numbers to gnuplot, then it will set the size as >>> expected. >>> >> >> If the "icon bar" is a fixed size in pixels, then I can handle >> wxt, Qt, and x11 having their sizes reported differently by >> xwininfo (or the like). If the "icon bar" is not a fixed size, >> then that would be problematic. We'd likely only update Octave's >> figure position property when we can be confident that x11 >> properly reports the window's size and position. > I fully agree with Ethan here : it seems more logical to fix a size > for the plot area rather than for the plot window. It makes that > property consistent when used with screen-based terminals and then > exporting to a file terminal. For example, you ask for a 400x300 > pixels figure, why would you want to get a 400x300 pixels PNG from > the png terminal and only a 350x290 pixels plot area in x11/ > wxt/... ? I'm quite sure you want 400x300 plot area in both cases. > > Timothée Agreed. What Octave desires is to know the size of the canvas. Ben |