visually distinguish right and left children
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm using the qtree package to render small inline trees in my document. The tree nodes in my case are limited to 0 or 2 child nodes. I'd like to visually distinguish the right and left branches somehow. Ideally with a red dashed line one one side and green solid line on the other, or possibly a bubble on one, however almost any clear visual feature would suffice.
Why do I want this? Because other places in my larger document I'm using more complex ways of drawing much larger trees. In these cases I always distinguish the two children with a red-dashed line and a green solid line. And in my text I refer to the two children as the "positive" child and "negative" child, never the left and right (as sometimes graphviz swaps the right and left to minimize crossing lines). I'd like to remove all mention of right and left for these graphs, but I can't because of this seeming limit of qtree.
Can someone suggest an fix?
as far as MWE consider the following.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{qtree}
newcommandbdd[1]{%
{scriptsizebegin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$Tree[#1]$end{tabular}}}
newcommand*YLR{bdd{.Y L R }}
begin{document}
Simple tree YLR and another
{scriptsize begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}
$Tree[.non-string [.A ] [.B [.not-number [.L ] [.R ] ] !{qframesubtree} [. C ] ] ]$
end{tabular}} less simple.
end{document}
Here is how it current renders.
graphs qtree
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm using the qtree package to render small inline trees in my document. The tree nodes in my case are limited to 0 or 2 child nodes. I'd like to visually distinguish the right and left branches somehow. Ideally with a red dashed line one one side and green solid line on the other, or possibly a bubble on one, however almost any clear visual feature would suffice.
Why do I want this? Because other places in my larger document I'm using more complex ways of drawing much larger trees. In these cases I always distinguish the two children with a red-dashed line and a green solid line. And in my text I refer to the two children as the "positive" child and "negative" child, never the left and right (as sometimes graphviz swaps the right and left to minimize crossing lines). I'd like to remove all mention of right and left for these graphs, but I can't because of this seeming limit of qtree.
Can someone suggest an fix?
as far as MWE consider the following.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{qtree}
newcommandbdd[1]{%
{scriptsizebegin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$Tree[#1]$end{tabular}}}
newcommand*YLR{bdd{.Y L R }}
begin{document}
Simple tree YLR and another
{scriptsize begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}
$Tree[.non-string [.A ] [.B [.not-number [.L ] [.R ] ] !{qframesubtree} [. C ] ] ]$
end{tabular}} less simple.
end{document}
Here is how it current renders.
graphs qtree
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm using the qtree package to render small inline trees in my document. The tree nodes in my case are limited to 0 or 2 child nodes. I'd like to visually distinguish the right and left branches somehow. Ideally with a red dashed line one one side and green solid line on the other, or possibly a bubble on one, however almost any clear visual feature would suffice.
Why do I want this? Because other places in my larger document I'm using more complex ways of drawing much larger trees. In these cases I always distinguish the two children with a red-dashed line and a green solid line. And in my text I refer to the two children as the "positive" child and "negative" child, never the left and right (as sometimes graphviz swaps the right and left to minimize crossing lines). I'd like to remove all mention of right and left for these graphs, but I can't because of this seeming limit of qtree.
Can someone suggest an fix?
as far as MWE consider the following.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{qtree}
newcommandbdd[1]{%
{scriptsizebegin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$Tree[#1]$end{tabular}}}
newcommand*YLR{bdd{.Y L R }}
begin{document}
Simple tree YLR and another
{scriptsize begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}
$Tree[.non-string [.A ] [.B [.not-number [.L ] [.R ] ] !{qframesubtree} [. C ] ] ]$
end{tabular}} less simple.
end{document}
Here is how it current renders.
graphs qtree
I'm using the qtree package to render small inline trees in my document. The tree nodes in my case are limited to 0 or 2 child nodes. I'd like to visually distinguish the right and left branches somehow. Ideally with a red dashed line one one side and green solid line on the other, or possibly a bubble on one, however almost any clear visual feature would suffice.
Why do I want this? Because other places in my larger document I'm using more complex ways of drawing much larger trees. In these cases I always distinguish the two children with a red-dashed line and a green solid line. And in my text I refer to the two children as the "positive" child and "negative" child, never the left and right (as sometimes graphviz swaps the right and left to minimize crossing lines). I'd like to remove all mention of right and left for these graphs, but I can't because of this seeming limit of qtree.
Can someone suggest an fix?
as far as MWE consider the following.
documentclass{article}
usepackage{qtree}
newcommandbdd[1]{%
{scriptsizebegin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$Tree[#1]$end{tabular}}}
newcommand*YLR{bdd{.Y L R }}
begin{document}
Simple tree YLR and another
{scriptsize begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}
$Tree[.non-string [.A ] [.B [.not-number [.L ] [.R ] ] !{qframesubtree} [. C ] ] ]$
end{tabular}} less simple.
end{document}
Here is how it current renders.
graphs qtree
graphs qtree
edited 17 hours ago
asked yesterday
Jim Newton
1386
1386
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago
add a comment |
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f461084%2fvisually-distinguish-right-and-left-children%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I found this question, but it was never answered. tex.stackexchange.com/questions/198405/…
– Jim Newton
15 hours ago