[Rd] barplot manpage (PR#7331)

Tony Plate tplate at acm.org
Wed Nov 3 20:52:30 CET 2004

You're right: it's ?par that could use fixing (wrt to definitions of 
"cex"-related arguments).

This is also a good example of why making even small changes to 
documentation is fraught with difficulty.  I suspect that such discussions 
could be had about many "minor improvements".

-- Tony Plate

At Wednesday 12:06 PM 11/3/2004, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>Tony Plate <tplate at acm.org> writes:
> > (1) Change "expansion factor" to "character scaling factor" or
> > "character magnification" in the descriptions of 'cex.axis' and
> > 'cex.names'
>Now that's a really bad idea in my book... The "ex" in "cex" is
>*ex*actly for *ex*pansion, also note the consistency with "mex".
> > (The documentation for 'barplot' uses 'expansion factor', while the
> > documentation for 'par' itself uses two other different terms
> > 'magnification' and 'scaling' to describe various 'cex' related
> > arguments.  Both common sense (my own, at least) and guidelines I
> > could find on the net suggest that it is better to consistently use a
> > single term to refer to a single concept.)
>Yup, but I think it is ?par that could use fixing. (The description of
>"mex" in there is a bit iffy as well. Why mix character sizes into
>something that really deals in interline distances?)
> > (2) add "par" to the "see also" section
>Obvious. In a bunch of other places too, I guess.
>    O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3
>   c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N
>  (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
>~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907
>R-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

More information about the R-devel mailing list