What is the reason for prepending Null?
Also, with Partition you should use UpTo so all elements are present.
Partition[Range@5, 3]
(* {{1, 2, 3}} *)
Partition[Range@5, UpTo@3]
(* {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5}} *)
Because when forming a graph, I want the upper left corner to be empty instead of the lower right corner. Wherever to be empty with Partition, it does not has the same gaps between figures as no Null.
I don’t think the Null is causing any extra space. I think what is happening here is that the plot at position 3 of list a has a different overall aspect ratio that those at position 4 & 5. It’s different because plot 3 needs extra room for the tick labels at the bottom. Plots 4 & 5 have their tick labels in the middle, and so don’t need extra space at the bottom. The GraphicsGrid is trying to make every cell the same size, so plots 1-3 force the vertical size to expand a bit, and plots 4-5 force the horizontal size to expand a bit. Juxtaposing plot 3 next to plots 4-5 makes the resulting padding more obvious.
It might be easier to see/understand if you add dividers and play with alignment:
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Prepend[a, Null], 3], ImageSize -> Full,
Alignment -> {Right, Top}, Dividers -> All]
and
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Prepend[a, Null], 3], ImageSize -> Full,
Alignment -> {Left, Bottom}, Dividers -> All]
I have always had issues with the sizes of items using GraphicsGrid and prefer to use Grid instead.
a = Table[Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, b}], {b, 5}];
Grid[Partition[Prepend[a, Null], UpTo@3], Frame -> All]
Grid[Partition[a, UpTo@3], Frame -> All]
But Grid can not align axes and When the images are large, the grid will make the images too small.
Okay. Your hypothesis is that in a GraphicsGrid, the presence of a Null in one “cell” of the grid causes extra spacing to occur in an adjacent “cell”. Let’s test that:
b = Table[Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, 3}], {b, 5}];
Now, let’s try all six possible positions for Null:
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 1], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid1.bmp (2.6 MB)
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 2], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid2.bmp (2.6 MB)
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 3], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid3.bmp (2.6 MB)
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 4], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid4.bmp (2.6 MB)
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 5], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid5.bmp (2.6 MB)
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 6], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
grid6.bmp (2.6 MB)
Your eyes are probably better than mine. Please point out to me which one of these images shows that extra space was added. If the spacing in these images was not affected by Null, then what could have affected the spacing in your original example? It seems like a reasonable conclusion to me that it has something to do with scaling different images to fit the grid.
Furthermore, your examples actually support MY hypothesis. In your latest example, you show one grid where padding seemed to be added and one where it was not. In the grid with extra padding, it was placed in a row where one image had tick marks at the bottom and the rest did not. In the grid with no extra padding, every element in each row of the grid was the same in this regard. Furthermore, in the second grid, PADDING WAS ADDED EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED. The padding between ROWS is now larger. You don’t seem to care about that spacing, but it is there. The horizontal padding is due to one of the plots having a thinner aspect ratio. The vertical padding is due to 5 of them having wider aspect ratio.
Here, this should illustrate what I’m saying:
plots =
Table[
Plot[
k Sin[x], {x, 0, 2 Pi}, AspectRatio -> Automatic, Background -> LightBlue],
{k, 1, 6}];
GraphicsGrid[Partition[plots, 3], Dividers -> All]
grid7.bmp (2.73 MB)
Thanks for your patience. Every time you replied to me with a lot of words, but I didn’t. It is not that I don’t want to state clearly, but my English is really poor. I hope this would not make you not feel good. I read your answer several times and then I really know all that you said. I feel that you are right as your reply can really explain the phenomena above.
However, I test a case which can’t be explained by your explanation. Let’s check it:
b = Table[Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, 3}, Frame -> True], {b, 5}];
GraphicsGrid[Partition[Insert[b, Null, 1], 3], ImageSize -> Full]
GraphicsGrid[Partition[b, UpTo[3]], ImageSize -> Full]
The difference between these two figures can’t be explained by your answers. May you take time to find the reason for this case?
Have a nice day.
I don’t know the reason. What your latest examples show, however, is more “global” variation across the entire grid. The Null isn’t causing unusual padding. The presence of the Null is causing the GraphicsGrid to calculate it’s dimensions differently, but once it’s done that, the result is “regular”.
As Rohit said, it seems to be harder to control the output with GraphicsGrid than with Grid. I haven’t used GraphicsGrid much, so I don’t have any suggestions for how to get what you want. You’ll have to play around with the options (e.g. Alignment). Or just use Grid.
However, if you’re wanting each “cell” in the graphics grid to have the same dimensions, then you’re never going to regularize the padding if your plots have different dimensions. Space will have to be added somewhere. So, maybe you can play with the Plot options for each little plot so that they are all the same dimensions and no variations in padding will occur.
Grid can’t align axes and can’t make each plot’s size to default, so sometimes the plots are too small in Grid.
Pick your poison.
(That’s an English idiom that means none of the choices are ideal. It’s a dilemma. You’ll have to choose the least bad option.)
Thanks a lot. You’re right, I will just pick the one with fewer defects.
