Re: desired features for gp backend?

[Daniel J Sebald]

Robert T. Short wrote:
> I always thought there was some elegance to the old interface, but if I 
> had time to do something like this I would help the plotting/graphics 
> guys move forward.
>
> As John says, the original interface would be hard to reconstruct and 
> the time is better spent elsewhere.
>
> I am sort of sorry I brought it up.  There is always value in discussion 
> and certainly John's comments helped me understand the way things 
> evolved but I fear I created some unnecessary activity.  I really never 
> meant that we should spend any effort to go back to the old style plotting.

Someone else suggested that, no you.  It's a bad idea.  One syntax or the other.  When 
John had a rudimentary version of Matryoshka Pointers and was afraid it was too much of a 
leap, I was one of the first to suggest going ahead; I had no expectations that gplot 
would be maintained.  What is important in my mind is an inroad to using more powerful 
features of the plotting engine.  Why limit oneself to the capabilities of Matlab?  A few 
hidden options having meaning only to the plotting engine seems plausible.  There are a 
lot of things in Octave that aren't supported by Matlab, e.g., "endfunction", 
etc.

Dan