Re: z_floor and z_ceiling (was Re: various observations)

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote:
> Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>=20
>> OK people, any preference as to xyplane (not 'ticslevel') having=20
>> bottom of zrange as 0 and top of zrange as 1?
>=20
>=20
> I would prefer to keep things as they are.  I think the possible benefi=
t=20
> of flipping this sign around is too small to warrant the confusion this=
=20
> is likely to cause among users.

OK, easy change if you want to try things the other way before the next r=
elease.

> If the current behaviour isn't easy to understand from existing=20
> documentation, I say fix the documentation, not the behaviour.
>=20
>> Should "set ticslevel at <zvalue>" be allowed? =20
>=20
>=20
> I don't really care.  This command in a script would have caused a=20
> syntax error in all earlier versions of gnuplot, so it can be added=20
> without causing compatibility problems.  OTOH, 'set ticslevel' is=20
> arguably the single worst option name gnuplot ever had, so it's probabl=
y=20
> not a good idea to add things to it.

I can disallow that...  Other things to note about "ticslevel":  There ha=
sn't been a bug report for the bad behavior of the z-axis line so that mi=
ght mean it isn't used too often.  "unset xyplane", wouldn't we expect th=
at to remove the xyplane altogether?  For example "unset xtics" removes t=
he xtics.

What may have been nice from the start would be to force set/show/reset t=
o come as a structure with three functions.  (Or maybe four, set/unset/sh=
ow/reset.)  The use of "reset xtics", "reset xyplane" wouldn't be ambiguo=
us the way "unset xtics", "unset xyplane" might be.

Dan