octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: plot templates and options lists for set, plot etc.


From: Ben Abbott
Subject: Re: plot templates and options lists for set, plot etc.
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:16:05 -0400


On Jun 7, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Thorsten Meyer wrote:

Hi,

Ben Abbott wrote:
Yes, I have seen, that the options are collected into a cell array
within the plot functions. However, keeping the options in a structure
has the advantage, that I can easily access and set the individual
options, e.g. to transform one plot template into a new one,  etc.
Also, how are graphic objects realized internally? Aren't they also
structures? It always seemed quite strange to me, that the get()
function returns a structure, while all the functions setting handle
options take lists of key, value,... as input arguments...

Thorsten

Hmmm ... when I first began using set/get, I had assumed that s=get(h)
would be reciprocated by set(h,s). Of course there are problems with
that example due to some properties being read-only.
I have been thinking about implementing a way to save a plot by getting
all the objects in in with get(h) and saving the corresponding
structures - and then being able to reproduce it with a sequence of set
commands. Will that be possible at all considering those read-only
properties?

However, isn't the functionality below what you're looking for?

style = struct("linewidth", 2, "marker", "x", "markersize", 12);
h = plot (1:10)
set (h, style)
exactly.

I don't see any problem with compatibility. If set() were an m-file,
such a change would take me a few minutes, but with c/c++, I won't be
much help proposing a patch.
I would like to try to do this, if nobody objects to such a change.

Also a question regarding the implementation:
I see that in graphics.cc(DEFUN set) the handle is extracted and the
rest of the arguments are passed to the set method of the graphics
object. If I want to make set accept also structures, I could either
handle this in the DEFUN set (expanding the structure to a list of key,
value and pass the adapted list of arguments to the set method) or
change the set method itself. Which of the two would be preferable?

Thorsten

I'm moving this discussion to the developers list, and have cc'd John and Jaroslav. Perhaps one of them can comment?

Ben




reply via email to

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