And while we are at it it would be nice to be able to get rid of
getChildren.viewport in this example too. Its only purpose
was to encapsulate access to the internals but if there were
an official way to do it it would be preferable.
On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On 5/21/06, Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks. I should have realized that. Now that I read it again with
> > your explanation it is clear.
> >
> > At the same time it would be convenient if one could specify a viewpo
On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. I should have realized that. Now that I read it again with
> your explanation it is clear.
>
> At the same time it would be convenient if one could specify a viewport
> or vpPath, as well. If that were the case we could also eli
Thanks. I should have realized that. Now that I read it again with
your explanation it is clear.
At the same time it would be convenient if one could specify a viewport
or vpPath, as well. If that were the case we could also eliminate the
names.* methods in this example. (These were included to
On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A year ago I had posted this code
>
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2005-June/033508.html
>
> and the associated discussion was that there would be a print.trellis
> argument that could be used to eliminate the need for with.vpPat
A year ago I had posted this code
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2005-June/033508.html
and the associated discussion was that there would be a print.trellis
argument that could be used to eliminate the need for with.vpPath
or with.viewport there. I assume that that is what draw.in= in
pr
