comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call

Home » Public Forums » archive » Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call [message #87073]

Sun, 05 January 2014 01:30

OM
Messages: 12
Registered: February 2011

Junior Member

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to add another x-axis at the top of several plots that are adjacent by using the AXIS command and the xstyle=9 keyword. Because they are adjacent, the rightmost tick mark of one plot is very close to the leftmost tick mark of the plot to its right. For that reason, I'd like to suppress the leftmost tick mark of all plots but the first one. I'm already using the xtickname keyword, so I tried just making the first tick mark empty with ' ', but it seems that IDL is set on putting a 0 there, no matter what I do. I tried putting another value instead of making it empty, but it just puts the value there WITH the 0 on top (or below, it's hard to tell). I tried using David Fanning's cgaxis, but that doesn't change anything. I'm really not sure what's going on here, or how to solve this...
The IDL version, if needed, is x86_64 linux 8.2.2.

I'd really appreciate help with this, it's kind of driving me crazy...

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: OM on Sun, 05 January 2014 01:30
		Re: Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: David Fanning on Sun, 05 January 2014 06:43
		Re: Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: OM on Sun, 05 January 2014 07:27
		Re: Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: David Fanning on Sun, 05 January 2014 07:59
		Re: Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: OM on Mon, 06 January 2014 04:27
		Re: Can't suppress 0 on AXIS call By: David Fanning on Mon, 06 January 2014 05:57

Previous Topic:	closed contour paths: clockwise or anticlockwise - or actually a mixture?
Next Topic:	Axis Labels

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 14:13:11 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02871 seconds