From: Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...> - 2005-03-22 13:46:10
|
Ethan Merritt wrote: > I want to plot a contour map with several explicit paths > superimposed on it. .. you didn't mention the usually recommended method: doing it via 'set term table' to put the contours into a file, then plotting that along with whatever else you want, in a single 'splot' or 'plot' commands. > So far as I can work it out, the only > way to do this currently is using multiplot: Not really, I think. If the secondary file is not in grid format (isolated isolines), contouring should leave it alone, and you can just plot it along with the contoured surface data. > This works, but I don't like having to depend on multiplot > mode to exactly superimpose things. So I am wondering if there > is a simple extension to the splot syntax that would allow this > within a single plot. Well, setting aside "simple" for a moment, I think the real problem is elsewhere: it's that 'set contour' itself is a flawed user interface concept. Contouring is a data modification method (like 'smooth bezier' in 2D), not a global plotting mode. I.e. we should not need a 'nocontour' option to turn off contouring for one dataset as much as we need a 'contour' option to turn it *on*. What I'm getting at is that 'set contour' needs to be changed like we changed 'set pm3d' already: from a global, all-encompassing gnuplot state to a per-dataset processing option. We need set contour explicit (off by default for backward compatibility) and splot 'file' with contours > This brings up an issue with whether "unset surface" should > have any effect at all on plots that are not contour plots. With my above proposal in place, I guess 'unset surface' could go away completely. It might sense to change its meaning, instead. E.g. it could implement the mildly frequently requested feature of plotting data as simple lines instead of a cross-connected mesh, even though it does have grid structure. 'unset surface' could be changed to disable that automatism. |