| Re: IDL produced postscript files in latex [message #22171 is a reply to message #22029] |
Wed, 18 October 2000 00:00   |
Joseph B. Gurman
Messages: 31
Registered: April 2000
|
Member |
|
|
In article <8siknl$g4k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Simon Webster
<simon@nonsense.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm producing postscript files with idl to go in a latex article.
> Everything is fine when i just have one plot on the page, but when i
> used !p.multi=[0,2,0] latex acted as though the second graph didn't
> exist, overwriting the plot with text. Is this a known problem and is
> there any way around it?
Given the comments from the previous posters, I woul guess that the
problem lies in the macro (usually called something like "psfig") you're
using to insert the PostScript graphic, or even more likely the
arguments you pass it. I remmember one macro (mercifully, I forget its
name and that of its author) that misdocumented the order of the height
and width parameters, and that prodcued the sort of behavio[u]r ypu're
seeing.
By the way, the macros are written in TeX (as opposed to LaTeX), so
they may look a little strange to LaTex users. (This is definitely a
usage in which "user" matches that of "drug user." I wish we could
forget about LaTeX entirely, but many professional journals and
conference proceeding publishers appear enamored of this fine, 1980's
technology. They claim it's "free," not counting the number of sys admin
hours required to get dvi2<output device> software to work, user time to
wrestle with recalcitrant, publisher-provided macros, and so on. We
should free ourselves of LaTeX and paper at the same time, and have
someone in the community develop a good equation-display facility [based
on Donald Knuth's formalism for TeX, so no one has to relearn how to do
it] for HTML. IMHO, of course.)
Unopinionated as ever,
Joe Gurman
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
