Re: Is "border" in pm3d redundant?

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

On Thursday, 25 June, 2015 12:54:55 Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> I was working on an application for which there's to be color surface 
> and mesh lines.  I began down the route of "border" feature for pm3d, 
> which is fairly new.  But after a while of not getting what I'd hoped 
> for in hidden3d mode, I began to wonder if pm3d/border is redundant 
> because gnuplot almost has such capability without the "border" feature. 
>   Having
> 
> splot x+y with pm3d border <line characteristics>
> 
> is sort of re-implementing
> 
> splot x+y with pm3d, x+y with lines <line characteristics>
> 
> In the long run we'd like some type of surface color control and true 
> hidden3d surface removal.  I know pm3d and hidden3d don't combine just 
> right, but that doesn't mean the syntax can't trend in a desired direction.
> 
> The general principle is that the user may want to use the same function 
> or data set for multiple plot elements, e.g.,
> 
> splot "foo" with lines <line chars> [and] surfels <face chars>
> 
> (or "polygons", "faces", whatever).  However, the "and" concept kind of 
> exists already with the special "-" filename:
> 
> splot "foo" with lines <line chars>,
>        "-" with surfels <face chars>
> 
> That is essentially saying "and" because there is no new function/file 
> specification.

I don't understand. Maybe you mean "" rather than "-"?

I really don't see any need for an "and" syntax.

	Ethan


> 
> So, I'm wondering if things are branching here a bit with regard to 
> pm3d/border and in the long run what the best approach is.  As I said, 
> after some use, I have second thoughts of adding more plot elements via 
> some existing element's option.  I'd rather use a syntax that seems more 
> in line with the eventual concept.
> 
> Dan