RE: print() and -S option to specify size (revisited)

[Schirmacher, Rolf]

I would propose to be VERY careful here.

As far as I know, Matlab has a "-s" option, which is used for specifying a
simulink block diagram to print. So, choosing the same character for a size
option, even if it is uppercase, is obviously not a good idea as it is
likely to cause confusion.

The second argument I have is that Matlab follows a totally different
approach. On the one side, you can specify the papersize of a figure (which
is a figure property) and on the other side you can specify the resolution
of a printer. The concept of a size in terms of pixel does not at all occur
in Matlab (not even with the bitmap file formats and print). 

Nevertheless, if we have a method to communicate the size of a plot to print
to gnuplot (in pixel), implementing the concept of papersize as a figure
property plus a printer resolution and then calculating the actual plot size
(in pixel) for the graphics backend seems to be a viable approach.

Rolf

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter A. Gustafson [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:34 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: print() and -S option to specify size (revisited)
> 
> 
> It seems that a size option has been added to the print command.  The
> changelog entry was:
> 
> 2007-10-06  Francesco Potorti`  <address@hidden>
>         * plot/print.m: Handle svg output type.  Accept new 
> -S option to
>         specify size for PNG and SVG output types.
> 
> and the discussion was here in sources:
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-sources/2007-October/
> 000077.html
> 
> I'm not on the sources list, so I'm sorry for the late entry here.
> There had been prior discussion about -S for size, which had 
> been turned
> away due to compatibility issues.
> http://www.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2007-Augu
> st/003637.html
> 
> Can we now assume that -S is acceptable?  And have we settled on
> "-S640,480" vs "-S640x480".  Or perhaps this is matlab compatible for
> the specific terminal?
> 
> If acceptable, this should be expanded for other terminals (latex,
> pslatex, etc).  If not, should it be curtailed until a 
> compatible method
> is established?
> 
> I think this is a fairly important issue, as plotting is a critical
> feature and desirable hardcopy rather essential.  I don't 
> have a strong
> opinion as to whether compatibility is important, however a clear
> direction on the matter is important.  I assume we want to avoid
> establishing a backwards compatibility issue for when the final
> direction is established.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Pete
>