Re: desired features for gp backend?

[Daniel J Sebald]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 14-Jun-2009, Robert T. Short wrote:
>
> | No, just the interface.  I did like the feature
> | 
> | gplot [x limits][y limits] ...
> | 
> | where I could set the x and y limits individually or leave either to the 
> | defaults.  Also, since it was a really direct interface to gnuplot 
> | instead of the current somewhat indirect interface, it was easier to 
> | figure out what you needed to do to get things working.  Each 
> | improvement you guys make simplifies the last anyway.
>
> I've said many times that I think that trying to implement the gnuplot
> syntax in Octave was a big mistake.  I wish I had never done it.

I'm not sure what the alternative would have been at the time, but that's the 
route you chose.  I needed support for histograms with axes way back when, so 
that set me to writing image support for gnuplot in order to enhance gnuplot 
and Octave.  The simpler interface likely made things easier to develop.  
Anyway, things evolve.


> | set(fig, 'postplot', 'set gnuplotfeature xyz; replot')
> | plot(x, y)
> | 
> | might have value.
>
> I have no interest in doing this because it ties your plotting
> commands to gnuplot, and introduces portability problems for people
> who don't want to use gnuplot for plotting.

Sort of, but not really.  set(fig, 'postplot', ...) says nothing about what is at the 
other end.  The rule would be that the option is "hidden", i.e., can't be used 
as valid syntax in any scripts or packages.  The analogy is the startup file of Octave or 
other programs; a means to initialize or cleanup the plotting engine.

Dan