scalePow evenly spaced ticks?
#3771
-
|
Looking at the code and experimenting, it seems like I'm not exactly sure what this would look like at the moment, but I feel like it should be possible for I could do something like this: const min = 0;
const max = 100;
const power = 2;
const steps = 10;
const scale = d3.scalePow().domain([min, max]).range([min, max]).exponent(power);
const ticks = d3.range(scale.range()[0], scale.range()[1], steps).map((v) => scale.invert(v));
// or
const ticks = d3.ticks(scale.range()[0], scale.range()[1], steps).map((v) => scale.invert(v));But I believe in the linear and log versions, there is more "magic" happening behind the scenes to make it look nice? Actually it looks like d3-array has a ticks method that does some magic, but I'm still not sure integrating it into my example above is as good as linear/log's built-in ticking. Moreover, maybe this should be added regardless for convenience, so I don't have to do any of the work above. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
|
Ticks are supposed to be "human readable", like 10, 20, 30, rather than arbitrary numbers such as 31.622776601683793, 44.721359549995796. A common use case is, say powers of 2, where you want the ticks to be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64… and your method allows that. However it's not generic: if you add more ticks in-between you get multiples of sqrt(2), which are not "readable". |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sorry for making an issue and not a discussion, I thought I saw that discussions weren't enabled on the repo. I think what I'm asking is if it should be made similar to how
It seems like if you increase ticks for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I guess I could use scaleLog for this behavior (though for my code I'd then need both scaleLog and scalePow), but I'd expect them to have similar behavior I guess. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Ticks are supposed to be "human readable", like 10, 20, 30, rather than arbitrary numbers such as 31.622776601683793, 44.721359549995796.
A common use case is, say powers of 2, where you want the ticks to be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64… and your method allows that. However it's not generic: if you add more ticks in-between you get multiples of sqrt(2), which are not "readable".