Re: R-alpha: Too little cex makes you shortsighted...

Thomas Lumley (thomas@biostat.washington.edu)
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Lumley <thomas@biostat.washington.edu>
To: R-testers@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: R-alpha: Too little cex makes you shortsighted...
In-Reply-To: <199609192225.KAA00150@stat.auckland.ac.nz>

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Ross wrote:
<snip: things about cex parameter>
> After you've passed some pointers or NAs into this kind of code a few
> times you start to build in protection.  I's still like an upper
> bound. How about 144pt.
>

How about 72*max(height,width)?.  This is the largest point size that will
fit on the output and so should satisfy everyone, but is still much
smaller than the average pointer.

thomas lumley
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
r-testers mailing list -- To (un)subscribe, send
subscribe	or	unsubscribe
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-testers-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-