Re: [matplotlib-devel] Scatter plot legend

2008-05-09 Thread Paul Kienzle
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:57:09AM -0500, Paul Novak wrote: > Hello, > > I'm still interested in having a polygon symbol in the legend for a > scatter plot. I've made some changes to the suggestion of Manuel Metz to > make the legend symbol look better (the code-fragment from legend.py is > bel

Re: [matplotlib-devel] new release?

2008-05-09 Thread Michael Droettboom
Eric Firing wrote: > Michael Droettboom wrote: > >>> I am still having a strange problem: ESP Ghostscript 815.04 (ubuntu >>> feisty) chokes on the apostrophe in text, such as in table_demo and >>> one or two others. I think this is just a crazy bug in this version >>> of gs; you aren't having a

Re: [matplotlib-devel] new release?

2008-05-09 Thread Eric Firing
Michael Droettboom wrote: >> I am still having a strange problem: ESP Ghostscript 815.04 (ubuntu >> feisty) chokes on the apostrophe in text, such as in table_demo and >> one or two others. I think this is just a crazy bug in this version >> of gs; you aren't having any such problems, are you?

[matplotlib-devel] Scatter plot legend

2008-05-09 Thread Paul Novak
Hello, I'm still interested in having a polygon symbol in the legend for a scatter plot. I've made some changes to the suggestion of Manuel Metz to make the legend symbol look better (the code-fragment from legend.py is below). But when resizing the window, the symbol gets stretched and placed

Re: [matplotlib-devel] new release?

2008-05-09 Thread Michael Droettboom
Eric Firing wrote: > John Hunter wrote: >> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I mistyped -- it's r5082/r5083. I think those revisions were >>> trying >>> to deal with something more specific to Postscript. Here's the >>> commit note:

Re: [matplotlib-devel] new release?

2008-05-09 Thread Eric Firing
John Hunter wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Michael Droettboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sorry, I mistyped -- it's r5082/r5083. I think those revisions were trying >> to deal with something more specific to Postscript. Here's the commit note: >> >> "Alternative fix for ps backend