gnuplot-beta

gpic terminal

[James C. <clo...@jh...>]

Why was the gpic term disabled?

Troff continues to have users, and pic remains the preferred
language for graphics in roff.

It is simple, but that is not unreasonable for many uses.

Incidently, I presume it would work with heirloom and plan9 troffs.
Perhaps the docs shouldn't say it were only for groff?

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cl...@jh...>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: gpic terminal

[Ethan A M. <sf...@us...>]

On Wednesday, 12 March, 2014 17:54:48 James Cloos wrote:
> Why was the gpic term disabled?

It seems reasonable to reduce the number of default terminal types
by omiting ones that are only of historical interest, or used only by 
legacy systems.   In part this is because egacy systems are probably
better served by running a contemporaneous version of gnuplot.
They can't make use of the new features anyhow, so why would
they want the latest version?  And if you were to configure a stripped
down version of the current source that is customized to a legacy
system, you'd want to tailor the set of selected terminals anyhow.

In any case the gpic terminal is still there -  "disabled by default" is not
the same thing as "deleted".  You can configure it in if you like.  

> Troff continues to have users, 

Does it?  Who?  Do they use the development version of gnuplot?

> and pic remains the preferred language for graphics in roff.
> 
> It is simple, but that is not unreasonable for many uses.
> 
> Incidently, I presume it would work with heirloom and plan9 troffs.
> Perhaps the docs shouldn't say it were only for groff?

Perhaps, but only if someone can attest this is indeed the case.
The documentation was written about 15 years ago, at the same
time as the driver itself.

It would be valuable to know if the gpic terminal actually works
with the current gnuplot.  The terminal code has not been modified 
since 1999 other than trivial changes to remove compiler warnings.
Do you know for certain that it does still work?

	Ethan

> 
> -JimC
> --
> James Cloos <cl...@jh...>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: gpic terminal

[James C. <clo...@jh...>]

>>>>> "EAM" == Ethan A Merritt <sf...@us...> writes:

JC>> Why was the gpic term disabled?

EAM> It seems reasonable to reduce the number of default terminal types
EAM> by omiting ones that are only of historical interest, or used only by 
EAM> legacy systems.

gpic matches neither of those.

EAM> In any case the gpic terminal is still there - "disabled by
EAM> default" is not the same thing as "deleted".  You can configure it
EAM> in if you like.

With that magic ./configure invocation?

It is commented, not #ifdef'ed.  An --enable-gpic/--disable-gpic is
easier to deal with when using automated build systems.

JC>> Troff continues to have users, 

EAM> Does it?  Who?  Do they use the development version of gnuplot?

Of course.  The groff lists have an active community.  It is in all of
the major distributions.  And development continues, such as the pdf
output device which was added several months ago.

And being part of current distributions means that anyone who tracks
gnuplot cvs (for any reason, such as tracking other teminals or wanting
libcerf) and uses roff will hit that intersection.

I really don't see how anyone could think groff were not in active use.

EAM> Perhaps, but only if someone can attest this is indeed the case.

My post did.

EAM> The documentation was written about 15 years ago, at the same time
EAM> as the driver itself.

So?

EAM> It would be valuable to know if the gpic terminal actually works
EAM> with the current gnuplot.

Yes it does, as anyone can test.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cl...@jh...>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: gpic terminal

[Ethan A M. <sf...@us...>]

On Wednesday, 19 March, 2014 13:48:41 James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "EAM" == Ethan A Merritt <sf...@us...> writes:
> 
> JC>> Why was the gpic term disabled?
> 
> EAM> It seems reasonable to reduce the number of default terminal types
> EAM> by omiting ones that are only of historical interest, or used only by 
> EAM> legacy systems.
> 
> gpic matches neither of those.
> 
> EAM> In any case the gpic terminal is still there - "disabled by
> EAM> default" is not the same thing as "deleted".  You can configure it
> EAM> in if you like.
> 
> With that magic ./configure invocation?

./configure --with-gpic
(as of just now)


> It is commented, not #ifdef'ed.  An --enable-gpic/--disable-gpic is
> easier to deal with when using automated build systems.
> 
> JC>> Troff continues to have users, 
> 
> EAM> Does it?  Who?  Do they use the development version of gnuplot?
> 
> Of course.  The groff lists have an active community.  It is in all of
> the major distributions.  And development continues, such as the pdf
> output device which was added several months ago.
> 
> And being part of current distributions means that anyone who tracks
> gnuplot cvs (for any reason, such as tracking other teminals or wanting
> libcerf) and uses roff will hit that intersection.
> 
> I really don't see how anyone could think groff were not in active use.
> 
> EAM> Perhaps, but only if someone can attest this is indeed the case.
> 
> My post did.
> 
> EAM> The documentation was written about 15 years ago, at the same time
> EAM> as the driver itself.
> 
> So?
> 
> EAM> It would be valuable to know if the gpic terminal actually works
> EAM> with the current gnuplot.
> 
> Yes it does, as anyone can test.

I am a bit dubious.  Running "plot x" through the gpic terminal in 4.6.5
shows that the lines are drawn dashed when they should be solid.
I suspect it broke years ago and no one has noticed.
Anyhow, I don't mind adding the configuration option.

If you have an actual piece of documentation that uses gnuplot+gpic+groff
I'd be interested to add it to the test suite so that at least breakage is
noticed.

	Ethan