Re: various observations (added to list)

[<br...@ph...>]

Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

>>> Actually, I'd think that the "linecolor", "pointtype" is an 
>>> extraneous syntax.  Couldn't it just be "points type 7 color rgb 
>>> "black""?  

>> No, because that syntax would fail miserably in the case of 'with 
>> linespoints': what type does "type" address: that of the points, or 
>> that of the lines?

> Good point.  Couple things, not that it really matters too much.  Is the 
> linespoints a special combination?  

It's a special combination.  But you have the source, so you might take 
the exercise of finding that out yourself.

Anyway: I seriously doubt that changing these aspects of the syntax now, 
15+ years into the history of the program, is an acceptable option.

> OHHHHHH!  "unset clabel"!!!  Having turned off the key, I guess it 
> wasn't that obvious that "clabel" that should be unset.  This just isn't 
> very obvious.

Feel free to suggest better wording for 'help contour', and/or a better 
alternative name for the option.

> How about including the attached prob3.dem in the demos somewhere.  It will 
> give an example of generating non-uniform r.v.s, (none of the 
> probability or random demos actually seem to do that).  It will also 
> give an example of monochrome contour lines.  It also gives an example 
> of using "table".

Well, we have an example of 'table' already (the vectors demo goes 
through a table file), and 'help table' already points to the example in 
'help contour', too.

This example could reasonably be attached to random.dem.

>>>  Also see 'stat.inc'.

> Gee, I didn't even know that definition file existed.  But what about 
> the contents of that file has to do with the invnorm() function or 
> generating r.v.s?

Nothing in particular.  Just thought you should consider it before 
reinventing more wheels; and it does deal with normal distributions at 
least a bit.