Bug#376206: grace: tick label for zero is not exactly zero (if format != general)

2007-02-14 Thread Ionut Georgescu
On the way :-) On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:34:39PM +0200, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Hence, I can conclude that the one-line patch you prepared fixes the bug: please apply it to the official 5.1.x branch. Did just some minutes before receiving this email ;-) Thanks

Bug#376206: grace: tick label for zero is not exactly zero (if format != general)

2007-02-13 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:44 +0200 Evgeny Stambulchik wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: Setting the tick label format to something different from general may, in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but not exactly equal to zero. [...] A patch is attached. Doesn't the

Bug#376206: grace: tick label for zero is not exactly zero (if format != general)

2007-02-13 Thread Evgeny Stambulchik
Francesco Poli wrote: Hence, I can conclude that the one-line patch you prepared fixes the bug: please apply it to the official 5.1.x branch. Did just some minutes before receiving this email ;-) Thanks for investigating the issue! :) For the Debian package maintainer: if a new official

Bug#376206: grace: tick label for zero is not exactly zero (if format != general)

2007-02-06 Thread Evgeny Stambulchik
Francesco Poli wrote: Setting the tick label format to something different from general may, in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but not exactly equal to zero. [...] A patch is attached. Doesn't the following one-liner suffice? @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ reenter:

Bug#376206: grace: tick label for zero is not exactly zero (if format != general)

2006-06-30 Thread Francesco Poli
Package: grace Version: 1:5.1.18-1 Severity: normal Hi! Setting the tick label format to something different from general may, in some cases, cause the zero tick label to be very close, but not exactly equal to zero. As a result, what should really be, say, 0.0e+00 (assuming, for instance, that