From: John H. <jdh...@ac...> - 2005-02-28 17:23:25
|
>>>>> "Darren" == Darren Dale <dd...@co...> writes: Darren> oops, I just noticed a bug, the first script I posted wont Darren> run. This updated script worked for me with a fresh 0.72.1 Darren> installation. Sorry about the error. Hi Darren, this is very nice work. Sorry for the delay in getting back but I've been tied up for the last week or so. One comment I have is that I think we might choose the default offset label differently. Visually 1e-5+12e-10 10 8 6 4 2 is hard to read because the two 10s line up when you should be comparing the 12 with the 10. I wonder if this is better 1e-5+1e-10*12 10 8 6 4 2 Still an eyeful but at least the significant part of the ticks are co-registered. What so you think? Likewise 10e-5 8 6 4 2 Becomes 1e-5*10 8 6 4 2 It takes more room but I find it easier to read because one naturally expects the significant digits to be in the same place. Another comment is that these labels take up a lot of space, and will pretty much break any default subplot which doesn't leave enough room for them. Although I like the idea of using one of the tick labels itself to handle the offset formatting, I wonder if we might be better off using a special axis.set_offset command, so that for example, the yaxis could place the offset above the ticks and thus take up less horizontal space. Just a thought. Also, I'm inclined to make this the default formatter -- do you see any problems with this? What troubles did you run into when you tried to add these changes to the ScalarFormatter class and then rolled them back because of clashes with derived classes? JDH |