I made a list of proposed targets for version 5 based on recent discussion.
Let me know if I missed any.
The first column indicates current status (09-Mar-2014)
* = complete
+ = preliminary version
- = proposed
Already in CVS
================================================================
* Default to enhanced text mode
* Support for an arbitrary number of axes
+ new "fit" code (in progress)
Target for release candidate 5.0.rc1
================================================================
+ Bold/Italic markup in enhanced text mode (in progress)
- Change the default color sequence, if only so that users know
this is possible to customize
- Smarter auto-layout of multiplots (e.g. patch #611)
- bit-shift operators C = A << n C = A >> n
Target for release 5.0, may be incomplete in rc1
================================================================
- separate control of line property descibing the dot-dash pattern
e.g. set linetype N dashtype 3 linecolor rgb "blue"
+ confirm consistency of first N point types across all terminals
N is I think currently 8. Increase to 12 or 16?
Unrealistic for version 5; Defer to version 6
================================================================
- multi-language support layer (Patchset #436)
- refactor main data input loop in graphics.c / datafile.c
- refactor log-scale code (store original data, scale during output)
Needs more discussion
================================================================
- Jon Gjengset mentioned a problem with image mode that I am not
familiar with and doesn't seem to have a Bug Tracker entry.
"Visible pixel grid has a scan line longer than previous scan lines"
Is this just a bug, or is there something more fundamental that
might change the image syntax or handling?
- Should we switch to 64-bit integers everywhere?
I really don't know how much work this would be.
This would have the side effect of solving problems with storing
32-bit ARGB color values in an int.
- Should use of ARGB colors require a new keyword?
e.g. linecolor {rgb 0xRRGGBB | rgba 0xAARRGGBB}
My personal opinion is no, but Tait has argued yes.
More opinions please?
- Do we need additional explicit type-conversion operators?
e.g. A=5; string(A) yields "5"
Feature Request (doesn't need to be coordinated with version 5)
================================================================
- various key options (#183, #297, #339, multiple keys)
- arrays
- combining data from multiple files into single using spec
- error reports should indicate original source line prior to
merging continuation lines
|
