You are right Francisco. I was misinterpreting, and probably not having an
"x" is not an issue.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Francisco de la Peña <
delap...@lps.u-psud.fr> wrote:
> Hi Gökhan,
>
> I think that we are understanding differently the notation (what would mean
> that it is indeed c
Hi Gökhan,
I think that we are understanding differently the notation (what would mean
that it is indeed confusing). For me 1e-10+3.207e-5 means: "to get your
value read the figure from the axis, multiply it by 1e-10 and add 3.207e-5".
The source of the confusion could be a missing "x" in front of
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Francisco de la Peña <
delap...@lps.u-psud.fr> wrote:
> Hi Gökhan,
>
> I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset
> there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation
> and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that
Hi Gökhan,
I tried your example and I couldn't find anything wrong with the offset
there. However, I agree that this particular mixture of scientific notation
and offset looks confusing. Maybe in that case it will be better to write:
x1e-10+320700e-10 . Is it what you mean?
Cheers,
Francisco
El
2009/11/15 Francisco Javier de la Peña
> Hi,
>
> I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is
> active. The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like
> -1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch
> and a test file to, in
Hi,
I find it difficult to read the values of an axis when the offset is active.
The problem is that many time I find myself doing calculations like
-1.2345e2-0.048 to find out the value of the tick. I send enclosed a patch
and a test file to, in my opinion, improve the readability of the ticks wi
