Re: 4.6.3 bug: tic labels disappear on minor tics

[Juhász P. <pet...@gm...>]

On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 16:13 -0700, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
[snip]
>  the label disappears for level 1
> (minor) tics.  For example,
>   set xtics (1, 2 1, "" 3 1, "" 4 1, 5 1, "" 6 1, "" 7 1, "" 8 1, "" 9 1, 10)
> or
>   set xtics ("1" 1, "2" 2 1, "" 3 1, "" 4 1, "5" 5 1, "" 6 1, "" 7 1, "" 8 1, "" 9 1, "10" 10)
> each produces a graph with the 2 and 5 labels missing (i.e., only 1 and
> 10 labels are present).  This behavior is also present for a linear-scale
> plot, 
[snip]

I asked a similar question some months ago and I was told that minor
tics don't have labels, by definition.

As far as I know, there is no workaround, because you only have minor
tics (that don't have labels) and major tics (that may have labels), and
you can set different sizes for only these two, but all major tics have
the same length.


One possible solution that does not break compatibility with the
existing definition, but provides variable length tics:

Allow the third number (the tic level) in the "set tics" specification
to be a real number instead of an integer. There would still be two tic
length settings, one for major, the other for minor tics, and the actual
length of a tic would be calculated by interpolating between the two
pre-set lengths (tic_len = tic_level * (minor - major) + major).

Any tic level that is not 1 could have labels.


best regards,

Peter Juhasz