Re: basic implementation for isosurface, isocolors, isonormals

[Thomas Treichl]

David Bateman schrieb:
> I don't think the hiding of the axis is a really major issue though I 
> also see some other artifacts that seem to be due to some weird issue in 
> gnuplot with the depthorder, and I don't see the fix for it at the 
> moment. Also it appears that FaceVertexCdata is not really implemented 
> yet and so these values aren't respected at all. In fact the patch 
> properties have a number of derived properties that should be treated 
> specially, like the differences between the [xyz]data and vertices and 
> faces data.. The derivation of one of these properties from another is 
> currently handled in the patch function itself.. However this doesn't 
> make sense as then if the user uses the "set" function to change one of 
> these properties the others won't be changed appropriately..
>
> The way to fix it is either to treat the issue in the set/get methods of 
> the patch type or to add callbacks in the patch functions.. Callbacks 
> are probably the easiest method as we can stay in the scripting 
> language.. I'll look at this as I'm interested in getting the iso* 
> functions into Octave..

Hi,

I just wanted to know, what the final maintainers' decision about inclusion of 
the iso* into the core Octave sources is? I think that I can work on creating a 
changeset because I don't want these codes get forgotten...

If you say you currently can't decide or you think it is better to not include 
the files right now or whatever then I think we should at least host Martin's 
functions at OF right now?

Best regards,

  Thomas

PS. Will my patch for __patch__.m be applied? Cf.
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-March/011273.html