Re: Plot placement, revisited

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

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
>  
>
>>If you recall, there was a discussion of precisely controlling the size 
>>of a plot.  It concerned how labels would take away space from the plot 
>>so that the eventual size of the borders was random, or at least not 
>>known to the user.  The solution was to set the margins to 0, for which 
>>the values specified in "size" matched the borders of the plot. 
>>    
>>
>
>Not quite.  You just have to set the margins to value other than the
>default, so gnuplot doesn't auto-size them.  It doesn't strictly have to
>be zero.
>

Oh.  I didn't know that.  Or I did but didn't make the connection. 
 There is still a bit of uncertainty, isn't there?  If I specify the 
margin to 1, for example, I'm not sure what the character height is in 
terms of plot units.  Hence, subtract that unknown quantity from the 
plot size and the size ends up with some uncertainty.


>>But there is a similar situation with the key.  When the key is 
>>specified as "below", that uses up space, so again "set size X,Y" is no 
>>longer the precise size of the borders. 
>>    
>>
>
>It is, if you set bmargin to a value large enough to let the key fit
>below the graph.
>

That isn't the behavior I see.  No matter what value of bmargin I use, 
the height of the plot becomes shorter when "set key below" is used. 
 The uncertainty could be dealt with if a key and margin were similar 
between the multiplots.  But in this case I only want a key for the 
bottom plot.

>That said, I like the suggestion.  But for now, we're not quite done with
>the "with pixels" stuff yet, are we?  I think that should take priority
>now.
>

Yeah.  (Just got ants in my pants to finish something.)  I recently 
checked that all the hunks in the image patch still work with CVS.

Dan