Re: Going over bugs before release...

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Oh yeah, what about this issue with the arrowhead tips extending past 
the point specified in the data?  I guess I'm in the camp that says that 
should be fixed so that the arrowhead tip ends right at the data point 
specified.  It would be nice to not let people get into the habit of 
compensating for that themselves and then to later have it changes.  I 
wrote out the formula and was going to write a patch, but unfortunately 
there was nowhere that I could get the line thickness from.

Could it be kludged in some way?  That is, could we add a terminal 
routine (dread!) that returns the width of the line and then in the 
terminal function just do some trial and error guesstimating about the 
line thickness?  That is, the formula for the vector to compensate is

v = - SE * w / (2 |SE| sin(alpha))

where SE is the vector in terms of start and end position, alpha is the 
angle of the arrow command, and w is the width of the current line. 
 Since line widths are a unitless number, I assume that each terminal 
needs a different routine, e.g.,

w = term->linewidth( unitless_width );

Where w is the width in appropriate graph units.  Or maybe the linewidth 
could be an array entry in other terminal characteristics.  For now, 
maybe the values could be fudged by trial and error.  E.g.,

float PS_linewidth( unitless_width ) {
  /* Do a crude linear approximation for now. */
  return unitless_width * TRIAL_AND_ERROR_PARAMETER;
}

Any thoughts on what to do here?

Dan