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
par(mfrow) and par(mfcol) is shown in detail. layout() is mentioned as a more complex alternative.
But would par(fig) be worth mentioning as well? Personally, I prefer it for complex plots instead of layout() as it allows the most precise and user-defined division of plot into segments while being much simpler than layout(). It is also the least documented one, since neither mfrow/mfcol parts of par mention it nor layout(), and many R tutorials or even advanced books are perhaps not even aware par(fig) exists.
What par(fig) does is that it defines plotting region in user coordinates. So par(fig = c(0, 1, 0, 0.5)) would be the bottom half of the plotting area. Which, for me, is much easier to think about than how to construct matrix layout for layout().
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In https://deepr.gagolewski.com/chapter/250-graphics.html#many-figures-on-one-page-subplots
par(mfrow)
andpar(mfcol)
is shown in detail.layout()
is mentioned as a more complex alternative.But would
par(fig)
be worth mentioning as well? Personally, I prefer it for complex plots instead oflayout()
as it allows the most precise and user-defined division of plot into segments while being much simpler thanlayout()
. It is also the least documented one, since neithermfrow/mfcol
parts ofpar
mention it norlayout()
, and many R tutorials or even advanced books are perhaps not even awarepar(fig)
exists.What
par(fig)
does is that it defines plotting region in user coordinates. Sopar(fig = c(0, 1, 0, 0.5))
would be the bottom half of the plotting area. Which, for me, is much easier to think about than how to construct matrix layout forlayout()
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: