Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!news.dfncis.de!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Hans-Bernhard_Br=F6ker?= <HBBroeker@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.gnuplot
Subject: Re: Major and minor ticks artifact
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:10:58 +0100
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <bnhe21F5utsU1@mid.dfncis.de>
References: <levp7j$tvo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.dfncis.de 5SFueEkGntyi7QRPgzWS1AvOFLHAptJo3xFJm2AemmcoEWRQbakKQgdb+b
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hzAPtv7p7PD+6rSbRvlrEmFUMRg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
In-Reply-To: <levp7j$tvo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Xref: csiph.com comp.graphics.apps.gnuplot:2331

On 02.03.2014 18:19, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> I noticed an ugly artifact that at on place a minor tic is unnecessarily
> displayed, and even straight *besides* the major tic. This was with a png
> term definition  set term png size 800,600 . If I change that definition
> to  set term png size 800,599  the artifact disappears. It's, yet again,
> a work-around.
>
> Is that how gnuplot works and how experienced people "solve" such issues,
> or is there any better approach?

How is anyone supposed to be able to answer that if you didn't even 
start to describe what you actually did in gnuplot to get this effect?