Patrick Connolly
2003-Aug-24 22:10 UTC
[R] Encapsulated postscript and the family argument
> version_ platform i686-pc-linux-gnu arch i686 os linux-gnu system i686, linux-gnu status major 1 minor 7.1 year 2003 month 06 day 16 language R>From my investigations, it would appear that if I wish to make an epsfile instead of a 'normal' postscript file, I can specify paper as 'special' and onefile to FALSE which will then mean the bounding box is used as the size. However, what wasn't obvious to me was that it is necessary to specify what family to use. If no family is specified, the default family does appear to be used, BUT, the resulting file is no different from a 'regular postscript' file. The value in ps.options does not seem to be used in the same way. Is this intentional behaviour? The help file refers to the existence of two forms of the argument family, but it doesn't seem to me to be what is at stake here. There is a reference earlier in the file to the need to be a postscript expert if tinkering with .ps.prologue is contemplated. Maybe something similar is required to understand what's happening here. best -- Patrick Connolly HortResearch Mt Albert Auckland New Zealand Ph: +64-9 815 4200 x 7188 ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~ I have the world`s largest collection of seashells. I keep it on all the beaches of the world ... Perhaps you`ve seen it. ---Steven Wright ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
Prof Brian Ripley
2003-Aug-25 07:03 UTC
[R] Encapsulated postscript and the family argument
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Patrick Connolly wrote:> > version > _ > platform i686-pc-linux-gnu > arch i686 > os linux-gnu > system i686, linux-gnu > status > major 1 > minor 7.1 > year 2003 > month 06 > day 16 > language R > > > >From my investigations, it would appear that if I wish to make an eps > file instead of a 'normal' postscript file, I can specify paper as > 'special' and onefile to FALSE which will then mean the bounding box > is used as the size. > > However, what wasn't obvious to me was that it is necessary to specify > what family to use. If no family is specified, the default family > does appear to be used, BUT, the resulting file is no different from a > 'regular postscript' file. The value in ps.options does not seem to > be used in the same way.The family used is nothing to do with EPS. The code is always EPS-conformant (but may not be a single page), but the *header* is only sometimes, the times being documented.> Is this intentional behaviour?Is what, exactly? Consider postscript(width=8, height=6, horizontal=FALSE) postscript(file="Rplots.eps", width=8, height=6, horizontal = FALSE, onefile = FALSE, paper = "special") The first does not give an EPS header: the second does. Try it and see: `family' has nothing to do with it. But for the record, if family is set in ps.options and not in the postscript call it is used. Try ps.options(family="Times") and repeat those calls. A long-timer such as yourself really, really should know not to send in vague statements not backed up by the code used to leap to these conclusions! BDR -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595