Re: Does this make sense?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg123953] Re: Does this make sense?
- From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:45:13 -0500 (EST)
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
- References: <201201010727.CAA28391@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at yahoo.com
What's that you say? Logic??
Bobby
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:27:22 -0600, Armand Tamzarian
<mike.honeychurch at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an option for Graphics called Method. The existence of this
> option is documented. However how the option works is apparently a
> secret! This from tech support:
>
> "Unfortunately, we cannot disclose those details that cannot be found
> in the documentation. I know that "technically", Method is a
> documented option for Graphics, but it does not show the details of
> the Method Option."
>
> This was in response to my request for details about Method. Some
> scraps of usage examples can be found in various forums where
> developers have posted this information but I was seeking a more
> complete list. For example I had asked tech support whether grid lines
> could be brought to the front in a graphic. It turns out they can and
> the way to do this, found by accident on a forum, is Method-
>> {"GridLinesInFront" ->True}.
>
> I understand why details of an undocumented option, presumably subject
> to change, would not be passed on to users. What I do not understand
> is why Wolfram would even list Method as an option to Graphics in the
> first place if users are never allowed to use it. What is the point?
> This seems to defy logic.
>
> Mike
>
--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
- References:
- Does this make sense?
- From: Armand Tamzarian <mike.honeychurch@gmail.com>
- Does this make sense?