You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
One more question: What if you want two axes to match but inverted? I'm thinking of things like x/y match but you want the diagonal to go NW-to-SE... or the population pyramid, with male on one side and female on the other, which you can do with a single axis and positive/negative data, but that requires fudging the data (negating one set) and with two axes you could put the labels in the middle without overlapping the data... Perhaps we could support this with scaleratio: -1?
I'm finding myself wanting this feature, but as far as I can tell, it isn't implemented yet. Specifically, I need it for x/y match with the NW-to-SE diagonal (for zooming onto squares (not physical, but data-based) on the diagonal). As noted, I can fudge the data to be on the NW/SE diagonal, but zooming isn't correct.
As noted above, one possible way to support this would be scaleratio: -1. Would that physically constrain the axes too? If so, I think that's less than ideal. One other option would to maybe add a matchesreversed option, which is identical to matches, except inverted. Or allow specifying an axes to matches like x-reversed (or similar).
I have two scatter plots, one of them with an inverted axis.
I need to match both y axes in order to share the same range between them, but 'matches' property doesn't consider whether you reverse an axis.
This was previously discussed in #1549 (comment)
I'm finding myself wanting this feature, but as far as I can tell, it isn't implemented yet. Specifically, I need it for x/y match with the NW-to-SE diagonal (for zooming onto squares (not physical, but data-based) on the diagonal). As noted, I can fudge the data to be on the NW/SE diagonal, but zooming isn't correct.
As noted above, one possible way to support this would be
scaleratio: -1
. Would that physically constrain the axes too? If so, I think that's less than ideal. One other option would to maybe add amatchesreversed
option, which is identical to matches, except inverted. Or allow specifying an axes tomatches
likex-reversed
(or similar).Related, but not the same: #3539
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: