Menu
▾
▴
Re: expanding allowed usage of word() command
|
From: m s. <mw...@us...> - 2008-11-13 02:49:29
|
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ethan A Merritt" <merritt@u.washington.edu> > To: gnu...@li... > Cc: "m sutton" <mw...@us...> > Subject: Re: expanding allowed usage of word() command > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:55:09 -0700 > > > On Sunday 09 November 2008, Ethan A Merritt wrote: > > How about: > > plot for [j=0:n] 'foo' index j using 1:(word(list,j+1) eq > > "lines" ? $2 : NaN), \ > > for [j=0:n] 'foo' index j using 1:(word(list,j+1) eq > > "points" ? $2 : NaN) > > > > That should obviously have been > > plot for [j=0:n] 'foo' index j using 1:(word(list,j+1) eq > "lines" ? $2 : NaN) with lines, \ > for [j=0:n] 'foo' index j using 1:(word(list,j+1) eq > "points" ? $2 : NaN) with points It never occurred to me to make a qualification to the using portion. I will give this a try on some real data. The only drawback I see is this would be inefficient when a line with many points is "skipped" by the second part of the plot statement and vice versa. But this approach is way better than using empty labels to plot points. Mike Sutton -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com |
