octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: graphics future


From: Shai Ayal
Subject: Re: graphics future
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:02:56 +0200

On 4/26/07, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
On 26-Apr-2007, Shai Ayal wrote:

| While I agree that compatibility is important, and what we don't make
| compatible today will come back at us in the form of bug reports and
| help requests, I think that maybe we should not strive, at this point
| in time, to be compatible with the latest feature set of matlab.

I'm not proposing that we get it 100% compatible for 3.0.

| While group objects make these a LITTLE bit more convenient, I fail to
| see what qualitative added value they have.

It is impossible to implement some fairly common plot types (stem,
bar, hist, stairs) in a compatible way without them.

The high level implementation would be compatible. The low level
objects would not be. Is that so bad for the time being? Are there
really a lot of scripts out there which access the group objects? If
you write new ones, would it make much of a difference if you use the
hgroup object or just access the "group members" ?

Also, even matlab provides the "old" interface: look at the bottom of:
http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/creating_plots/f7-45202.html#f7-47175
which seems to suggest the there is a lot of old code lying about.
So we can implement the "v6" interface  which will also work with
current matlab, and not be compatible with the "v7" interface for the
time being

Shai


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]