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
I'm finding it difficult to reliably guess whether the active graphics device is being provided by svglite::svglite() or instead by vdiffr::write_svg() since in either case names(dev.cur()) == "devSVG". In the first case I'd like {gridpattern} / {ggpattern} to default to using the new alpha mask / gradient support whereas in the later case I need to fall back on a slower, rasterized alternative.
However if {svglite} added support for the new dev.capabilities() then I could simply rely on isTRUE(dev.capabilities()$clippingPaths) to tell if the active graphics device is provided by svglite::svglite() instead of vdiffr::write_svg() (when R >= 4.2).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently
{svglite}
does not provide full information to the enhanceddev.capabilities()
feature introduced in R 4.2:I'm finding it difficult to reliably guess whether the active graphics device is being provided by
svglite::svglite()
or instead byvdiffr::write_svg()
since in either casenames(dev.cur()) == "devSVG".
In the first case I'd like{gridpattern}
/{ggpattern}
to default to using the new alpha mask / gradient support whereas in the later case I need to fall back on a slower, rasterized alternative.However if
{svglite}
added support for the newdev.capabilities()
then I could simply rely onisTRUE(dev.capabilities()$clippingPaths)
to tell if the active graphics device is provided bysvglite::svglite()
instead ofvdiffr::write_svg()
(when R >= 4.2).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: