Re: Is "border" in pm3d redundant?

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

On Thursday, 25 June, 2015 15:03:14 Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 02:22 PM, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 June, 2015 14:05:02 Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> [snip]
> >>  Is there something beneficial to "border" beyond the syntax that already
> >
> >>  existed?
> >
> > I don't know of another way to get the equivalent of
> >
> > set pm3d hidden3d border lc "black"
> >
> > splot x*y with pm3d
> >
> > If you try to draw the lines in a separate plot clause, the
> >
> > hidden3d effect is lost.
> 
> How about?
> 
> set hidden3d front
> set samples 100,10
> set isosamples 100,10
> splot x*y with pm3d, x*y with lines lc "black"
> 
> That seems pretty close to the same plot, at least conceptually.  There 
> may be some subtle difference. 

Right. That is one of the work-arounds that can be made to handle
a common case, as in the "hidden2.dem" example.  But it doesn't
extend to the general case.

Anyhow, if there are two ways to get the same output picture - so what?
I advocate for the Perl philosophy:
  "There's more than one way to do it!"
as opposed to the Python countervailing view:
  "there should be one — and preferably only one - obvious way to do it"

	Ethan