octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: AspectRatio Patches [changeset]


From: Konstantinos Poulios
Subject: Re: AspectRatio Patches [changeset]
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:23:31 +0100

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've pushed both changesets.
>>>
>>> There's been a several changes to the backend in the last few weeks. There 
>>> are now some problems with the demos ...
>>>
>>>        rundemos plot
>>>
>>> ... the ones I've noticed are for "patch" and "isosurface". Demo 2 for 
>>> "hold" also looks like there is a problem.
>>>
>>> I mention this to enourage you to run the plot demos to make sure your 
>>> changesets don't break anything (which I don't think they have).
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Ben
>>
>> it seems that there is a small bug in the daspect and pbaspect
>> arguments handling. E.g.:
>>
>> octave:3> daspect([1,1])
>> error: invalid value for array property "dataaspectratio"
>> error: called from:
>> error:   /opt/share/octave/3.3.54+/m/plot/daspect.m at line 68, column 9
>>
>> I would suggest something like the fix in the attached changeset.
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Kostas
>> <daspect_pbaspect_input_length_2.changeset>
>
> Does it make sense to set the 3rd element to unity each time, or to preserve 
> he existing value?
>
> Specifically, how should pbaspect and daspect behave in the axes contains a 
> 3D plot and either aspect is set using a vector of length 2?
>
> If the 3rd property value is to be preserved then I can push the attached.
>
> Ben
>
>
hmm, I am not sure if it makes more sense to retain the current value.
Since aspect ratio values are interpreted relatively to each other in
my understanding they make sense only when they belong to the same
set. But this is just my opinion, if you want I can provide a
changeset that takes into account the current value for the third
aspect value.

In the meanwhile I have noticed that ML will not accept an array of
dimension 2 even for the 2D case, so maybe we could just eliminate the
possibility of input arrays with length 2 in pbaspect and daspect at
all.

Anyway this is a secondary issue, any decision will not make a big difference.

Kostas



reply via email to

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