Re: Re: irreversibly reversing range

[Karl-Friedrich R. <mai...@gm...>]

On 09.09.2012 23:50, sfeam (Ethan Merritt) wrote:
> 
> <aside>  
> As you probably recall, my opinion is that a range specifier in the plot 
> command is always a bad idea.  If it were just me, I'd remove that option
> altogether.  The only reason I can see to allow it is if it is changed so
> that the in-line range applies only to the immediately following plot clause.
> That way you could get separate ranges for separate plots:
>    plot [10:20] f1(x), [20:30] f2(x), [30:100] f3(x)
> I don't really like that either, but at least it would provide a 
> capability that isn't addressed by simply doing "set xrange" first.
> </aside>

I´d strongly advocate that change, it seems a most stringent solution!

That way, the range in the plot command would only refer to the
sampling (one could even expand it to include an increment like in
"for [::]", e.g. plot [0:2:0.2] f(x)).

Then the autoscaling would only rely on the actual points the plot
(be it a function or datafile) returns, and adding "reverse" would
always have the expected effect of having the highest numbers on the
left.

Default sampling range for function plots then is [-10:10], and
there is just no need for a default range of the scaling of the
abscissa.

Best regards,

  Karl