Re: Outerposition Patch

[Ben Abbott]

On Feb 19, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Ben Abbott wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2011, at 2:21 AM, logari81 wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 19:06 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:35 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 22:40 +0100, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, bpabbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bpabbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Konstantinos Poulios <address@hidden>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:37 AM, logari81 wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:09 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:32 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 19:37 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2011, at 12:05 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 20:00 +0100, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM, David Bateman <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 10 févr. 2011 à 00:25, logari81 <address@hidden> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the previously attached patch causes problems 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legends. However, in order to treat legends correctly I need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand their logic. How do legends exploit the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outerposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position properties? Is anyone familiar with legend.m to give 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a short
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't try to understand the logic of legend's use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position and outerposition properties. It's just a hack that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worked with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing behavior. If your patch doesn't work well with legend 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably legend that needs to be fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The attached patch replaces the previous one and implements the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation of both position and outerposition depending on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of activepositionproperty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very well tested yet, so there will probably be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. legends will not work, but it brings a feature that maybe is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awesome. It is something that Matlab cannot do and maybe you like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the following video:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ubuntuone.com/p/cYM/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The position property is calculated dynamically while you rotate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view, so that all labels fit in outerposition. I think it works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in order to keep it. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As this operation involves certain computational overhead, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to get some tests on older machines. Unfortunately 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pc's that I have access to, are too fast.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch also fixes http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?31610 for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fltk toolkit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, if we adopt the attached patch we have to adapt legend.m
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kostas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After some more testing and fixes I think the patch is quite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the form you find in the attachment. I think it could be checked 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just checked in this changeset along with some further
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes/improvements. Now, I would like to provide some additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> information and ask for some help with regard to the open issues 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> had listed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are still some general issues with fltk that I will try to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. In some demo plots axes labels seem to be too close to the axes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. demo legend 9). Probably in some of the previous changes 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something that I have overseen.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually after testing older revisions of octave I realized that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is not new. The reason that I hadn't noticed it before is
>>>>>>>>>>>> because the problem appears only in the print output and not in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> plot
>>>>>>>>>>>> window. It seems that gl-render and gl2ps position strings
>>>>>>>>>>>> differently
>>>>>>>>>>>> considering either the bottom line or the baseline of the string
>>>>>>>>>>>> respectively. It is not difficult to fix, we just have to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> of gl-render and gl2ps are we going to fix in order to make both
>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Legends for barplots don't show colors (this is an old 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Some small y axes interference for plotyy (also not new).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Now there is no labels-titles interference in demo subplot 1, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no need for extra space between the subplots, we can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit the padding (someone which is familiar with subplot.m I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Waiting for someone familiar with subplot.m
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I"ve just pushed a changeset that improves the layout of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> subplots.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/7b67bbf9dbbb
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also attaching a test script that runs under Octave and Matlab.
>>>>>>>>>>> Results for both are attached.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This script is cool, I was thinking of doing something like that but 
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> didn't realize that it can be done so easily.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The test script places dashed blue lines around the position of each
>>>>>>>>>>> axis, and dashed red around the outerposition.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You mean blue lines around the original axes position before adding
>>>>>>>>>> labels and titles. The version of the script that I have attached in
>>>>>>>>>> this email visualizes the updated positions which correctly coincide
>>>>>>>>>> with the axes.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok. I see your point. I'll have to do some experimenting with the
>>>>>>>>> corrected version.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> When subplot (3,3,1:3) is used to replace the first row of 
>>>>>>>>>>> subplots, a
>>>>>>>>>>> green dashed box is used to encompass the new position, and a 
>>>>>>>>>>> dashed magenta
>>>>>>>>>>> for the outerposition.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The problems I see are ...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The activeposition property is still "outerposition".
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> why is this a problem? Maybe we prefer this, maybe not, see my 
>>>>>>>>>> comment
>>>>>>>>>> on (2). ML sets it to "position" but we do not have necessarily to do
>>>>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We may decide to deviate from compatibility with Matlab, but before
>>>>>>>>> doing so we should discuss it on the list. The list has already 
>>>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>> and agreed to Matlab compatibility (before my time here), it would be
>>>>>>>>> improper to deviate from that agreed upon approach without discussion 
>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Can we abide by Matlab's example for now and discuss changes later. If
>>>>>>>>> nothing else, that would make it easier (for me) to review the state 
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> graphics for Octave (via dump_demos and such).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The width of subplot (3,3,1:3) has been improperly modified on 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> c++ side.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Actually this is not really "improperly". It is doing what it was
>>>>>>>>>> expected to do. What we programmed in c++ is a minimum left margin of
>>>>>>>>>> 13% of outerposition(3). For the upper subplot the total width is 3
>>>>>>>>>> times the width of the other subplots so the minimum left margin is
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> 3 times higher. It is ugly.
>>>>>>>>>> This would be a reason for switching to
>>>>>>>>>> activepositionproperty=position.
>>>>>>>>>> This way, we wouldn't let sync_position do its job but we would do it
>>>>>>>>>> manually in the frontend. Now we are able to, before we couldn't
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> we couldn't get any tightinset values.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If consistent with Matlab, the subplot(3,3,1:3) would produce an axes
>>>>>>>>> with a position property that encompasses the original 3 axes (Matlab
>>>>>>>>> documents this, but I've noticed some minor "bugs" on their part).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For now, can the position/outerposition synchronization be implemented
>>>>>>>>> in the manner that is consistent with Matlab's documentation?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Meaning that when outerposition is active …
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I) position(1) is adjusted to the right (never to the left), to ensure
>>>>>>>>> no object extends to the left of outerposition(1).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Right now, no objects should extend left of outerposition(1). If there
>>>>>>>> is a test case not respecting this rule, please let me know (only
>>>>>>>> exception is if you make the plot window tiny).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't see any cases of that. What I do see is that you're requiring a
>>>>>>> minimum of space between the outerposition and position boxes. So you're
>>>>>>> adding features, correct?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> II) position(2) is adjusted upward (never downward), to ensure no 
>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>> extends below the outerposition(2)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> likewise
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your approach is not consistent with the "never downward" part, Correct?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> III) position(3) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>>>>>>>>> extends beyond the outerposition(1)+outerposition(3).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> likewise
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Same.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> IV) position(4) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>>>>>>>>> extends beyond the outerposition(2)+outerposition(4).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> likewise
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Same again.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When the position property is active the relationship is reversed. Its
>>>>>>>>> been a couple of years since I looked that this in detail. Is my
>>>>>>>>> understanding of how Matlab works consistent with yours?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) The positions have been shifted to the left relative to what was
>>>>>>>>>>> specified by subplot.m. Originally, their left edges were very 
>>>>>>>>>>> close to the
>>>>>>>>>>> left edge of the outerpositon.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "left edges" I don't get this point.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Opps ... not "left", but "right"!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My observation was that the right edge of the "position" has been
>>>>>>>>> shifted to the left even though no object impinged upon the right 
>>>>>>>>> edge of
>>>>>>>>> the outerposition.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is 9.5%. The problem is that we consider these minimum margins 13%
>>>>>>>> to the left, 9.5% to the right, 11% to the bottom, 7.5 %to the top. 
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is compatible with ML for normal plots, but for subplots ML reduces 
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> limits. Actually subplot in ML is quite a hack. We have different
>>>>>>>> possibilities of achieving the same behavior. I make a proposal at the
>>>>>>>> end.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Actually Matlab does not have "minimum margins". Those margins are set 
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the "defaultaxisposition" and "defaultaxisouterposition" properties 
>>>>>>> (present
>>>>>>> in the root, figure and axes objects). Thus, they are controlled on by
>>>>>>> m-file side by the user.  So I think the current synchronization isn't
>>>>>>> compatible with Matlab, even for normal plots.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) The xticklabels and yticklabels should be tigher to the axes.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> This is adjustable I think. Maybe it makes sense to calculate the
>>>>>>>>>> distance of ticklabels from axes as percentage of axes sizes.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This isn't a documented by MathWorks. However, I did some 
>>>>>>>>> experimenting
>>>>>>>>> and found that ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a) xlabel baseline is (2*fontsize + 7) points below the axis position
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> b) x-axis ticklabels are (fontsize + 1.5) points below the axis 
>>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> the bigger the font, the higher the distance from the axis
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> c)  the right extent of the y-axis ticklabels is (20/fontsize + 1)
>>>>>>>>> points to the left of the axis position.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> so, the bigger the font, the closer to the axis? Interesting.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Keep in mind that the extent property is designed for type-settting, so
>>>>>>> there is some white space included. Thus, the visual result does not 
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> the impression the characters are closer to the axis box. Matlab and
>>>>>>> Octave's extents aren't yet consistent, so there is good reason not to
>>>>>>> blindly copy this feature. However, I do think the spacing should rely 
>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>> the font and not the axis.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Do you believe these 3 approximations a,b and c are fixed or they could
>>>>>>>> change proportionally to the axes width/height.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No they do not. This is easily seen my resized the figure with the 
>>>>>>> mouse.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As this isn't documented by MathWorks, they could change it. So there 
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no compelling reason to copy the specifics.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> However, if there are multiple axes in the same figure, I think the
>>>>>>>>> spacing between axes, ticklabels, and labels  should be consistent 
>>>>>>>>> (assuming
>>>>>>>>> the fontsize is consistent). Does that make sense? Other thoughts /
>>>>>>>>> concerns?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> SUGGESTION:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1st step: Add a new property (hidden?) to the axes object:
>>>>>>>> minmargins = [l b rt]
>>>>>>>> with default value derived from defaultaxesposition:
>>>>>>>> l=defaultaxesposition(0)
>>>>>>>> b=defaultaxesposition(1)
>>>>>>>> r=1-defaultaxesposition(0)-defaultaxesposition(2)
>>>>>>>> t=1-defaultaxesposition(1)-defaultaxesposition(3)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I rather not see this done. The margins are currently defined by the 
>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>> on the m-file side by changing the position/outerposition of the axes. 
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> just looks more complicated to me with no added capability.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2nd step: Modify sync_positions so that it takes into account 
>>>>>>>> minmargins
>>>>>>>> instead of defaultaxesposition. This would mean no change for all other
>>>>>>>> plots, but for subplots it gives as the possibility to reduce the
>>>>>>>> minimum margins from the frontend (e.g. reduce the ugly 9.5% to the
>>>>>>>> right).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd prefer that the synchronization limit itself to the compatible
>>>>>>> behavior. For activepositionproperty = "outerposition"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I) position(1) is adjusted to the right (never to the left), to ensure 
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> object extends to the left of outerposition(1).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> II) position(2) is adjusted upward (never downward), to ensure no object
>>>>>>> extends below the outerposition(2).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> III) position(3) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>>>>>>> extends beyond the outerposition(1)+outerposition(3).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IV) position(4) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object 
>>>>>>> extends
>>>>>>> beyond the outerposition(2)+outerposition(4).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In short the position property never expands, but retracts to keep 
>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>> and its children inside the outerposition.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Conversely, when the activepositionproperty == "position", the
>>>>>>> outerposition never contracts, but expands so as to encompass the axis 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> its children.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One of the difficulties I'm having with subplot is that the 
>>>>>>> synchonization
>>>>>>> second guesses the specified position. In addition, the current solution
>>>>>>> will be difficult to document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 3rd step: Optimize subplot.m making use of the new property minmargins
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Only by setting minmargins to zero would eliminate most problems that 
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> observe now with subplot. More sophisticated use of minmargins would
>>>>>>>> even allow us to synchronize the insets in rows and columns of the
>>>>>>>> subplot grid (AFAIK is what ML does, can you confirm this?).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What do you think? Should I add the a property minmargins or something
>>>>>>>> similar?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ok, Please propose a changeset with the default for  minmargins set to
>>>>>>> zero so that we'll have a compatible solution.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hmm, I have a suggestion. Since I thought that the implementation of
>>>>>> sync_position for single plots (not subplots) is compatible with ML,
>>>>>> and you are saying that it isn't, this should be the first issue to
>>>>>> fix. Could you provide me with an example of a single plot that
>>>>>> demonstrates the difference between ML and Octave?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As soon as I fix this we can come back to subplot again and continue
>>>>>> our discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kostas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First example is for activeposition == "position"
>>>>>> figure (1)
>>>>>> clf
>>>>>> set (gca, 'position', [0 0 1 1], 'activepositionproperty', 
>>>>>> 'outerposition')
>>>>>> plot (0:1,0:1)
>>>>>> axis ([0 1 0 1])
>>>>>> outerposition = get (gca, 'outerposition')
>>>>>> I've attached the result from Matlab.  The outerposition from Matlab is
>>>>>> outerposition =   -0.1677   -0.1350    1.2903    1.2270
>>>>>> Octave's result does not grow the outerposition.
>>>>>> outerposition =   0   0   1   1
>>>>> 
>>>>> ouuuuups!!! I introduced this bug in 98772e4e8a2a. It used to work
>>>>> correctly before. I have just pushed the fix, so it should be ok
>>>>> again.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> If this example so that activeposition == "outerposition" ...
>>>>>> figure (1)
>>>>>> clf
>>>>>> set (gca, 'position', [0 0 1 1], 'activepositionproperty', 
>>>>>> 'outerposition')
>>>>>> set (gca, 'outerposition', [0 0 1 1])
>>>>>> plot (0:1,0:1)
>>>>>> axis ([0 1 0 1])
>>>>>> … then I see that the default axis position is restored. This does 
>>>>>> behave in
>>>>>> the manner you're suggesting, but it is not described by the 
>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>> http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/creating_plots/f1-32495.html
>>>>>> This behavior is new to me (wasn't there when I examined this a few years
>>>>>> back). So it appears I owe you an apology for the back-n-forth.
>>>>>> I did a quick google, and found that someone else named "Ben" had figured
>>>>>> out what is happening.
>>>>>> http://undocumentedmatlab.com/blog/tag/outerposition/
>>>>>> Rather than minmargins, may I suggest you use "looseinset" as Matlab 
>>>>>> does?
>>>>>> For the subplots, the looseinset may be set to some reasonable value by 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> subplot.m function.
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Same article, but this time a direct link
>>>>>> http://undocumentedmatlab.com/blog/axes-looseinset-property/
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am working on looseinset now. It shouldn't take long to implement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BR
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kostas
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>> 
>>>> in the attached changeset you can find a first implementation of
>>>> looseinset. The sync_position function relies now on looseinset instead
>>>> of default_axes_position.
>>>> 
>>>> Known limitations: looseinset remains always in normalized units (since
>>>> it is a hidden property I see no need to support other kinds of units)
>>>> 
>>>> Please test this patch and send me any comments.
>>>> 
>>>> BR
>>>> 
>>>> Kostas
>>>> <looseinset-1a.changeset>
>>> 
>>> For consistency, how difficult is it to implement the units conversion? ... 
>>> or maybe a more proper question is; Is there a reason that units conversion 
>>> is prohibitive?
>> 
>> the units conversion itself is not a problem, but how different units
>> for looseinset will be interpreted in sync_positions is not very
>> straightforward. My main concern however is that by adding further
>> checks and conversions to sync_positions it becomes heavier and heavier.
>> Since looseinset is not supposed to be accessed by users maybe it makes
>> sense to support only normalized units. This should be sufficient for
>> achieving a decent subplot behavior. What do you think?
> 
> I'd thought the axes properties were always stored normalized, and that 
> conversion only occurred when the user did a set/get from the m-file side. 
> Meaning that accessing the axes properties on the c++ side would return 
> values in the default units, and that units conversion had to be done 
> explicitly. 
> 
> How does the conversion work on the c++ side? Can you not directly access the 
> properties without triggering a conversion? ... if conversion always happens, 
> then why isn't setting units="normalized" sufficient to fix the conversion in 
> all cases (i.e. position, outerposition, tightinset, looseinset)? In either 
> event, if units=="normalized" no conversion needs to be done, so I'm confused 
> as why this is a problem. Am I making sense?
> 
> Ben

I studied the code over the last few days. I now understand why leaving 
looseinset in normalized units is preferred.

I think understand your point regarding the subplot behavior is correct as 
well. For subplot the units won't matter since the looseinset would be set to 
[0 0 0 0], is correct?

Please push the change. When that is done, I'll push a change for subplots and 
run dump_demo to produce an updated page. 

Ben