barplot manpage (PR#7331)
You're right: it's ?par that could use fixing (wrt to definitions of "cex"-related arguments). This is also a good example of why making even small changes to documentation is fraught with difficulty. I suspect that such discussions could be had about many "minor improvements". -- Tony Plate
At Wednesday 12:06 PM 11/3/2004, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Tony Plate <tplate@acm.org> writes:
(1) Change "expansion factor" to "character scaling factor" or "character magnification" in the descriptions of 'cex.axis' and 'cex.names'
Now that's a really bad idea in my book... The "ex" in "cex" is *ex*actly for *ex*pansion, also note the consistency with "mex".
(The documentation for 'barplot' uses 'expansion factor', while the documentation for 'par' itself uses two other different terms 'magnification' and 'scaling' to describe various 'cex' related arguments. Both common sense (my own, at least) and guidelines I could find on the net suggest that it is better to consistently use a single term to refer to a single concept.)
Yup, but I think it is ?par that could use fixing. (The description of "mex" in there is a bit iffy as well. Why mix character sizes into something that really deals in interline distances?)
(2) add "par" to the "see also" section
Obvious. In a bunch of other places too, I guess. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
______________________________________________ R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel