Closed thomased closed 3 years ago
The best solution IMO would be to stop messing with margins. Users can set par()
themselves if they wish. But I'm not even convinced it's necessary in most cases.
Hah, well that's a fair point. I'll scroll through them all & check but you might well be right.
I'm not sure if we needed to tweak the 3d plot(s) for good reason, but perhaps not...
I think the current code calls for margin tweaking in some cases but my sentiment is that it's a suboptimal behaviour and we should transform this code to avoid it rather than treating the symptom and tweaking the margins
On a related note, par(pty = "s")
should be removed to use plot(asp = 1)
(which seems closer to the desired effect anyways).
Ah, cheers. Will do.
So after a quick look we can remove all the margin-fiddling for the 2d-plots without issue. I guess we need to do the proper deprecation procedure? Or can we just ditch it since I doubt many people really use it anyway...
Fixed in #220 — thanks.
The margin-reset-on-exit changes cran wanted as part of
2.6.1
have created a little issue when adding points to plots that require custom margins. E.g. the following should add a point at the origin, but it's offset owing to margin differences (I think?).Not sure what the simplest solution would be yet.
(As an aside, some reliable way to test images would be lovely...)