Am 03.06.2016 um 01:23 teilte mwilkins mit:

Hi Matt,

I tried to reproduce the problem. Even w/ 1200% magnification I don't
see any difference. Attached are two pdf files, one w/ the original
pgflibraryplotmarks.code.tex one time w/ the described fix.

Can you still reproduce the problem?

Hilmar

> The file
>    /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplotmarks.code.tex
> is buggy.  When you use the tex command
>    \pgfuseplotmark{triangle*}
> the triangle does not appear in the correct position, it is shifted to
> the right by a little bit.  You can google this problem and see that
> the solution is to append % to the lines in the definition of
> \pgfdeclareplotmark{triangle*}.  You know in tex, newlines in
> definitions often muck things up, you need to stick the comment on the
> end of the line to fix it up.   Actually you probably could patch all
> the other definitions in the file, but I only used the triangle* and
> triangle so only tested it with those.
> 
> Here is a small test case for you:
> 
>    \documentclass{article}
> 
>    \usepackage{tikz}
>    \usetikzlibrary{plotmarks}
> 
>    \begin{document}
>    \begin{tikzpicture}
>    \draw (-1, 0) -- (1, 0);
>    \draw (0, -1) -- (0, 1);
>    \node at (0,0) {\pgfuseplotmark{triangle*}};
>    \end{tikzpicture}
> 
>    \end{document}
> 
> Just save it in a .tex file, pdflatex it, and view the pdf file.  The
> triangle is not at (0, 0).  Then edit 
>    /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/libraries/pgflibraryplotmarks.code.tex
> making sure the triangle* section looks like this
> 
>    % A stroke-filled triangle mark
> 
>    \pgfdeclareplotmark{triangle*}
>    {%
>      \pgfpathmoveto{\pgfqpoint{0pt}{\pgfplotmarksize}}%
>      \pgfpathlineto{\pgfqpointpolar{-30}{\pgfplotmarksize}}%
>      \pgfpathlineto{\pgfqpointpolar{-150}{\pgfplotmarksize}}%
>      \pgfpathclose%
>      \pgfusepathqfillstroke
>    }
> 
> and everything will be fine, the triangle will appear exactly at (0, 0).
> 
> I did attempt to get this fixed upstream, but never got anywhere with them.
> Perhaps we can just have a patch in debian?  Or you could try to push
> it upstream and you will have more traction than I?
> 


-- 
sigfault
#206401 http://counter.li.org

Attachment: 826174.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 826174_1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to