Re: clunky fn plots

[Allin C. <cot...@wf...>]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, pl...@pi... wrote:

> On 10/11/11 22:51, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, pl...@pi... wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/11 20:25, Juhász Péter wrote:
>>>> By the way, an answer to your original question would be
>>>>
>>>> plot "datafile" using 1:2, "" using 1:(f($1))
>>>>
>>>> which would evaluate your function at exactly the same points as the
>>>> datafile.
>>>
>>> Ah , thank you very much. That , to me would seem to be a logical
>>> default if the fn is in that same command as the data.
>>
>> I disagree strongly; this would be a crazy default. It is not unusual to
>> wish to plot the combination of some data points and a function, where
>> there are relatively few data points yet one wants the function drawn
>> smoothly.
>
> yes, you are right of course. I'm making the classic mistake of thinking 
> what I'm doing is somehow "typical".
>
> I think the key point is to make 'set sample' more discoverable.

Yes, I'd agree about that. I happen to have figured that out some
time ago (I can't remember how), but it's not very obvious. Seems 
like it should be cross-referenced under "plot".

Allin Cottrell