Menu
▾
▴
gnuplot-beta
|
From: Eddie K. <ko...@cs...> - 2005-08-11 19:35:03
|
Hi, Over three years ago Harald Harders and I submitted a patch that supports explicit minitics, as well as minitics when tics are supplied explicitly. It's simple and adds obviously missing functionality in what seems a pretty sensible way. It was not applied because the whole subsystem should be redone, or some such reason, I don't remember exactly what. Of course the subsystem has not been redone and three years have passed. It's frustrating to try to contribute to a cool project and get neither traction nor feedback. Could someone just go ahead and apply a version of sourceforge patch #1104018 (the current version of #594815/#835235), or tell us how improve the patch? Thanks very much, and sorry for the frustration. Eddie Kohler UCLA |
|
From: Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2005-08-11 20:42:28
|
On Thursday 11 August 2005 12:37 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote:
>
> Over three years ago Harald Harders and I submitted a patch that
> supports explicit minitics, as well as minitics when tics are
> supplied explicitly.
I guess I am confused about the history of this proposal.
I was under the impression that the original idea was to allow
user placement of tics at various levels (major/minor/...), and
that this feature had in fact been accepted into the cvs version
in Dec 2003 and became part of the version 4.0 release.
What additional feature is offered by the present patch?
I just downloaded and looked at it, but the only description I
see is 2 short paragraphs in gnuplot.doc And frankly, I do
not understand from that description what it allows that is not
already possible using a command like:
set xtics ("Major" 1.0 1, "Minor" 1.5 2, \
"Major" 2.0 1, "Minor" 2.5 2)
Does it allow additional tic levels?
Does it actually use the label strings that the current command
accepts but then apparently ignores?
So it may well be a "cool project", but at least to me it is
not obvious what it does. Could you provide an updated
sales pitch?
thanks
> It's simple and adds obviously missing
> functionality in what seems a pretty sensible way. It was not
> applied because the whole subsystem should be redone, or some such
> reason, I don't remember exactly what. Of course the subsystem has
> not been redone and three years have passed.
>
> It's frustrating to try to contribute to a cool project and get
> neither traction nor feedback. Could someone just go ahead and apply
> a version of sourceforge patch #1104018 (the current version of
> #594815/#835235), or tell us how improve the patch?
>
> Thanks very much, and sorry for the frustration.
> Eddie Kohler
> UCLA
>
--
Ethan A Merritt merritt@u.washington.edu
Biomolecular Structure Center
Mailstop 357742
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
|
|
From: Eddie K. <ko...@CS...> - 2005-08-11 21:37:42
|
First, thanks for responding!!
I wasn't aware of this change! Abject apologies. So maybe I'll
submit a patch that updates the `set mxtics` documentation to mention
that explicit tic setting is available by `set xtics`.
One portion of the minitics patch isn't obsoleted, as far as I can
tell. This is the code that can place minitics automatically when
tics were placed explicitly. Here's a demo:
set logscale y
set yrange [1:10000]
set xrange [0:100]
set mytics 10
set ytics ("10^0" 1,"10^1" 10,"10^2" 100,"10^3" 1000,"10^4" 10000)
plot x**2
I find this quite useful (it's nice to not have to place all the
minitics explicitly).
So what about a patch like this?
- Update `set mxtics` documentation to say that explicit minitic
placement can be achieved with `set xtics`
- Remove explicit `set mxtics (pos1,pos2,...)` syntax
- Allow syntax such as `set mxtics FREQ {, MAJFREQ {, OFFSET}}`,
which will place FREQ minitics between every "major tic", where
"major tics" are defined as occuring at OFFSET + i*MAJFREQ for all i.
Eddie
On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 12:37 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote:
>
>>
>> Over three years ago Harald Harders and I submitted a patch that
>> supports explicit minitics, as well as minitics when tics are
>> supplied explicitly.
>>
>
> I guess I am confused about the history of this proposal.
> I was under the impression that the original idea was to allow
> user placement of tics at various levels (major/minor/...), and
> that this feature had in fact been accepted into the cvs version
> in Dec 2003 and became part of the version 4.0 release.
>
> What additional feature is offered by the present patch?
> I just downloaded and looked at it, but the only description I
> see is 2 short paragraphs in gnuplot.doc And frankly, I do
> not understand from that description what it allows that is not
> already possible using a command like:
>
> set xtics ("Major" 1.0 1, "Minor" 1.5 2, \
> "Major" 2.0 1, "Minor" 2.5 2)
>
> Does it allow additional tic levels?
> Does it actually use the label strings that the current command
> accepts but then apparently ignores?
>
> So it may well be a "cool project", but at least to me it is
> not obvious what it does. Could you provide an updated
> sales pitch?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> It's simple and adds obviously missing
>> functionality in what seems a pretty sensible way. It was not
>> applied because the whole subsystem should be redone, or some such
>> reason, I don't remember exactly what. Of course the subsystem has
>> not been redone and three years have passed.
>>
>> It's frustrating to try to contribute to a cool project and get
>> neither traction nor feedback. Could someone just go ahead and apply
>> a version of sourceforge patch #1104018 (the current version of
>> #594815/#835235), or tell us how improve the patch?
>>
>> Thanks very much, and sorry for the frustration.
>> Eddie Kohler
>> UCLA
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ethan A Merritt merritt@u.washington.edu
> Biomolecular Structure Center
> Mailstop 357742
> University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams *
> Testing & QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/
> bsce5sf
> _______________________________________________
> gnuplot-beta mailing list
> gnu...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnuplot-beta
>
|
|
From: Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2005-08-11 22:25:50
|
On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:40 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> One portion of the minitics patch isn't obsoleted, as far as I can
> tell. This is the code that can place minitics automatically when
> tics were placed explicitly. Here's a demo:
>
> set logscale y
> set yrange [1:10000]
> set xrange [0:100]
> set mytics 10
> set ytics ("10^0" 1,"10^1" 10,"10^2" 100,"10^3" 1000,"10^4" 10000)
> plot x**2
Is this intended to produce a different output than the current
version does using:
set logscale y
set yrange [1:10000]
set xrange [0:100]
set mytics 10
# set ytics ("10^0" 1,"10^1" 10,"10^2" 100,"10^3" 1000,"10^4" 10000)
set format y "10^%L"
plot x**2
I.e., is the only effect of the patch to *not* turn off minor tics
in the presence of user labels? If so, then it seems like it could
be done either by using the 'set format' statement, or by a 1-line
change to the existing code.
> So what about a patch like this?
>
> - Update `set mxtics` documentation to say that explicit minitic
> placement can be achieved with `set xtics`
Sure. If the current docs are confusing, let's fix them.
Also think about whether adding an explicit index entry would help
(the cvs version of the docs makes an index).
> - Remove explicit `set mxtics (pos1,pos2,...)` syntax
You mean remove it from your earlier patch?
That syntax is not currently legal in the cvs code.
> - Allow syntax such as `set mxtics FREQ {, MAJFREQ {, OFFSET}}`,
> which will place FREQ minitics between every "major tic", where
> "major tics" are defined as occuring at OFFSET + i*MAJFREQ for all i.
You lost me there. I thought that's what the current code already
does. Please post a sample plot that illustrates what you are aiming
for. It's OK to dummy it up by hand; I just want to see what the goal is.
There's another issue that is lurking. I don't see on the face of it how
you could mix manual placement of major tics with auto-generation of
intervening minor tics. Would each interval have a different
spacing of tics? That seems really strange. And if the intervals
are the same, then I think the current code can handle this already
by clever use of the "set format" statement. Post a sample plot
and I'll see if I can come up with a way to generate it with the
current command set.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 12:37 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Over three years ago Harald Harders and I submitted a patch that
> >> supports explicit minitics, as well as minitics when tics are
> >> supplied explicitly.
> >>
> >
> > I guess I am confused about the history of this proposal.
> > I was under the impression that the original idea was to allow
> > user placement of tics at various levels (major/minor/...), and
> > that this feature had in fact been accepted into the cvs version
> > in Dec 2003 and became part of the version 4.0 release.
> >
> > What additional feature is offered by the present patch?
> > I just downloaded and looked at it, but the only description I
> > see is 2 short paragraphs in gnuplot.doc And frankly, I do
> > not understand from that description what it allows that is not
> > already possible using a command like:
> >
> > set xtics ("Major" 1.0 1, "Minor" 1.5 2, \
> > "Major" 2.0 1, "Minor" 2.5 2)
> >
> > Does it allow additional tic levels?
> > Does it actually use the label strings that the current command
> > accepts but then apparently ignores?
> >
> > So it may well be a "cool project", but at least to me it is
> > not obvious what it does. Could you provide an updated
> > sales pitch?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> It's simple and adds obviously missing
> >> functionality in what seems a pretty sensible way. It was not
> >> applied because the whole subsystem should be redone, or some such
> >> reason, I don't remember exactly what. Of course the subsystem has
> >> not been redone and three years have passed.
> >>
> >> It's frustrating to try to contribute to a cool project and get
> >> neither traction nor feedback. Could someone just go ahead and apply
> >> a version of sourceforge patch #1104018 (the current version of
> >> #594815/#835235), or tell us how improve the patch?
> >>
> >> Thanks very much, and sorry for the frustration.
> >> Eddie Kohler
> >> UCLA
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ethan A Merritt merritt@u.washington.edu
> > Biomolecular Structure Center
> > Mailstop 357742
> > University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> > Practices
> > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams *
> > Testing & QA
> > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/
> > bsce5sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnuplot-beta mailing list
> > gnu...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnuplot-beta
> >
>
>
--
Ethan A Merritt merritt@u.washington.edu
Biomolecular Structure Center
Mailstop 357742
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
|
|
From: Eddie K. <ko...@CS...> - 2005-08-11 23:42:25
Attachments:
sampleplot.png
heavyfactors.eps
|
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:40 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote:
>
>> One portion of the minitics patch isn't obsoleted, as far as I can
>> tell. This is the code that can place minitics automatically when
>> tics were placed explicitly. Here's a demo:
>>
>> set logscale y
>> set yrange [1:10000]
>> set xrange [0:100]
>> set mytics 10
>> set ytics ("10^0" 1,"10^1" 10,"10^2" 100,"10^3" 1000,"10^4" 10000)
>> plot x**2
>>
>
> Is this intended to produce a different output than the current
> version does using:
>
> set logscale y
> set yrange [1:10000]
> set xrange [0:100]
> set mytics 10
> # set ytics ("10^0" 1,"10^1" 10,"10^2" 100,"10^3" 1000,"10^4" 10000)
> set format y "10^%L"
> plot x**2
>
> I.e., is the only effect of the patch to *not* turn off minor tics
> in the presence of user labels? If so, then it seems like it could
> be done either by using the 'set format' statement, or by a 1-line
> change to the existing code.
If it could be done by a 1-line change, great. The 'set format'
statement doesn't work, as far as I know, if, for example, the user
wants to highlight one important Y-position with a tic; "set ytics
(1, 10, "Median" 25, 100, 1000, 10000)"
>> So what about a patch like this?
>>
>> - Update `set mxtics` documentation to say that explicit minitic
>> placement can be achieved with `set xtics`
>>
>
> Sure. If the current docs are confusing, let's fix them.
> Also think about whether adding an explicit index entry would help
> (the cvs version of the docs makes an index).
Sure.
>> - Remove explicit `set mxtics (pos1,pos2,...)` syntax
>
> You mean remove it from your earlier patch?
> That syntax is not currently legal in the cvs code.
Yes, I meant remove it from the current patch.
>> - Allow syntax such as `set mxtics FREQ {, MAJFREQ {, OFFSET}}`,
>> which will place FREQ minitics between every "major tic", where
>> "major tics" are defined as occuring at OFFSET + i*MAJFREQ for all i.
>>
>
> You lost me there. I thought that's what the current code already
> does. Please post a sample plot that illustrates what you are aiming
> for. It's OK to dummy it up by hand; I just want to see what the
> goal is.
The current code does do that, as long as major tics were not
explicitly set. If major tics were explicitly set, all automatic
minitic generation is turned off. (As far as I know.) I'd like to
tell gnuplot to go ahead and generate automatic minitics anyway,
based on an assumed major tic frequency.
> There's another issue that is lurking. I don't see on the face of
> it how
> you could mix manual placement of major tics with auto-generation of
> intervening minor tics. Would each interval have a different
> spacing of tics? That seems really strange. And if the intervals
> are the same, then I think the current code can handle this already
> by clever use of the "set format" statement. Post a sample plot
> and I'll see if I can come up with a way to generate it with the
> current command set.
OK, see the attached plot. Now, one could do this with a "set ytics
(...)" statement that placed each minitic explicitly (that's how I
mocked it up). But I'd like to avoid that. A plot from the paper
that inspired my initial patch is below that; there are varying
formats on both axes, requiring explicit tics.
Thanks so much!
Eddie
|
|
From: Ethan A M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2005-08-12 05:33:07
|
On Thursday 11 August 2005 04:44 pm, you wrote: > > On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:40 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote: > > I.e., is the only effect of the patch to *not* turn off minor tics > > in the presence of user labels? If so, then it seems like it could > > be done either by using the 'set format' statement, or by a 1-line > > change to the existing code. > > If it could be done by a 1-line change, great. The 'set format' > statement doesn't work, as far as I know, if, for example, the user > wants to highlight one important Y-position with a tic; "set ytics > (1, 10, "Median" 25, 100, 1000, 10000)" First pass at such a patch uploaded to SourceForge. More than one line changed, but it only adds about 10 lines in total. Give it a while and see if I have understood what you want. In this form I might even use the feature myself :-) -- Ethan A Merritt Biomolecular Structure Center University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742 |
|
From: Eddie K. <ko...@cs...> - 2005-08-12 06:33:38
|
That's totally cool!! Having tried it out, it looks like it could effectively do most anything the old patch would have done. Thanks so much. Hope it makes it in! Eddie Ethan A Merritt wrote: > On Thursday 11 August 2005 04:44 pm, you wrote: > >>>On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:40 pm, Eddie Kohler wrote: >>>I.e., is the only effect of the patch to *not* turn off minor tics >>>in the presence of user labels? If so, then it seems like it could >>>be done either by using the 'set format' statement, or by a 1-line >>>change to the existing code. >> >>If it could be done by a 1-line change, great. The 'set format' >>statement doesn't work, as far as I know, if, for example, the user >>wants to highlight one important Y-position with a tic; "set ytics >>(1, 10, "Median" 25, 100, 1000, 10000)" > > > First pass at such a patch uploaded to SourceForge. > More than one line changed, but it only adds about 10 lines in total. > Give it a while and see if I have understood what you want. > In this form I might even use the feature myself :-) > |
