Re: Bug in 5.4.rc2

[Dima K. <gn...@di...>]

I finished a patch just as you wrote this. The patch is attached. I
tried several operations, and it appears to do what I want, and not
break anything. The code has a lot of confusion about the meaning of
xlow/xhigh/ylow/yhigh in arguments to store2d_point() and again, in the
*cp structure this function fills. The previous code was passing the x,y
extents to store2d_point(), but if you do that, you run out of
arguments, and can't pass the y extents even if you wanted to. This
patch computes the extents inside store2d_point(), so there are
arguments left over. This patch also documents the meanings of
xlow/xhigh/ylow/yhigh.



Ethan A Merritt <me...@uw...> writes:

> On Monday, 22 June 2020 23:11:41 PDT Dima Kogan wrote:
>
> Autoscaling on y for "with circles" is not a well-defined operation.
> The whole point of the style is that the circle radius depends only on
> x. It will accommodate any yrange by adjusting the extent on y taking
> into account the aspect ratio of the plot.

Maybe I'm abusing the intent of the style here, but in my intended
usage, the meaning is well-defined, and the existing behavior highly
surprising. I want a circle in the x and y coordinates of the plot. If
the aspect ratio is square, it will look like a circle. If the aspect
ratio isn't square, it will look like an ellipse. Is "with circles" not
the proper style? Do I want "with ellipses"? I do see that what you're
saying is spelled-out in the "with circles" documentation; I guess I
thought the meaning of "circle" was clear-enough such that I didn't need
to read that page :)

And regardless of the answer to that question, the user expectation is
that the autoscaling would cause everything in the plot to be visible.
So given that, we shouldn't be cutting off any of the plotted circle.

Thanks