[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Does this make sense?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg123958] Re: Does this make sense?
• From: Szabolcs Horvát <szhorvat at gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:46:57 -0500 (EST)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• References: <jdp1ve$roi$1@smc.vnet.net>

Hi Mike,

You might be aware of this, but it not, you will find a collection of 
some Method option values here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7087149/how-can-one-find-undocumented-options-or-option-values-in-mathematica

On 2012.01.01. 8:28, Armand Tamzarian 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
>


-- 
Szabolcs Horvát
Mma QA site proposal: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/37304