|
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
|