On 14-Nov-2007, Joseph C. Slater PE, PhD wrote:
|
| On Nov 13, 2007, at 2:11 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
|
| > I'd like to have a fairly small list of key goals for 3.1 so that we
| > can make another release 6 months or so after 3.0. Here's my current
| > list:
| >
| > <snip>
| >
| > * Eliminate __gnuplot_X__ functions from Octave
| > <snip>
| >
| > Comments or suggestions?
|
| Is there a tangible benefit to doing this?
For me, there are at least two. First, it eliminates some klugy code,
so makes maintenance easier. Second, since these functions no longer
have any effect on the output of plots created with the Matlab
compatible plotting interface, removing them will avoid some
confusion.
| Matlab compatibility. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the existence of
| this level of control is a plus.
Being able to specify details is nice, but tying it specifically to
gnuplot is a big minus.
| Octave/gnuplot allows this
| easily enough, through the ability to specify fonts, include equations
| (in latex), control the size of the graphic very well. Through
| metapost output, tweaking the parameters is available (not as easy
| with an eps or PDF output). Will this functionality disappear in the
| future?
Since the graphics backend may not always be based on gnuplot, I don't
see how we can expect to support all the output formats that gnuplot
can unless someone volunteers to write the code. As I understand it,
the gnuplot license will not allow us to simply borrow code from the
gnuplot output drivers.
In any case, if people really want to preserve the direct
gnuplot-style interface, then they are free to create an external
package for Octave to provide it. But I have no desire to maintain it
myself, or have it as a part of Octave.
jwe