Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can we deprecate fatten arg of geom_pointrange()? #4881

Open
yutannihilation opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #6238
Open

Can we deprecate fatten arg of geom_pointrange()? #4881

yutannihilation opened this issue Jun 19, 2022 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #6238

Comments

@yutannihilation
Copy link
Member

A follow up of #3672. Related to #4872, #2798

In my understanding, fatten was a workaround for the inability of controlling the point size and the line width differently. So, now that #3672 gets merged, I think geom_pointrange() no longer needs this parameter.

@yutannihilation yutannihilation changed the title Deprecate fatten arg of geom_pointrange() Can we deprecate fatten arg of geom_pointrange()? Jun 19, 2022
@yutannihilation
Copy link
Member Author

Thinking this again, geom_crossbar() still needs fatten on the other hand because the middle bar is also line, not point. So, this seems a bit complicated than I thought. Anyway I think we need to clarify the relationship between size, linewidth, and fatten.

@thomasp85
Copy link
Member

yeah, I think we may push this to the release after this in order to make the transition a bit smoother?

@yutannihilation
Copy link
Member Author

yutannihilation commented Jun 25, 2022

If there's no downside, I think it's nice if we can include this in v3.4.0. It might be another good example to show why separating linewidth from size is useful.

@teunbrand teunbrand linked a pull request Dec 12, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants