Outerposition Patch

[logari81]

On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 12:46 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 9:20 AM, logari81 wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 18:45 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
> >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> ons, 09 02 2011 kl. 19:28 +0000, skrev bpabbott:
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> dump_demos.m and friends are becoming a valuable debugging tool. Can
> >>>>>> we commit them to Savannah?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> - Jordi G. H.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I like the suggestion. One problem is that the dump_demos.m script
> >>>>> produces a script with syntax errors. Essentially, when the syntax is
> >>>>> tweaked to work under Matlab, some features are missed. I'll take a
> >>>>> look at the details. Maybe it is possible to have the resulting script
> >>>>> run error free under Octave.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Ben
> >>>> 
> >>>> The problem is that some demos are written in Octave syntax (i.e. using
> >>>> " for strings, "endfor" to stop loops and so forth). This required me to
> >>>> make some hacks in the code to semi-automatically create matlab
> >>>> compatible code; this is just a mess. It would be more simple if the
> >>>> demos could be changed to be matlab compatible.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Søren
> >>> 
> >>> I've pushed a change to allow all demo scripts to be converted to Matlab 
> >>> syntax using Soren's simple approach.
> >>> 
> >>>   http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/a754c2d8a13f
> >>> 
> >>> Soren, if it's ok with you, I'll prepare a changeset to push dump_demos.m 
> >>> as well as a script I wrote to produce your html web-page.
> >>> 
> >>> Ben
> >> 
> >> I have more work to do, but the link below illustrates the result I get 
> >> now (tip 12437)
> >> 
> >>    http://homepage.mac.com/bpabbott/12437/compare_plots.html
> >> 
> >> Ben
> >> 
> > It seems that it is not clear 12437 but you have applied the patch I
> > have sent here:
> > https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2011-February/022955.html
> > 
> > If this is true I see no regressions, should I push it?
> > 
> > Kostas
> 
> Yes the path is applied.
> 
> There are two regressions. They can both be seen in the subplot demos.
> 
> (1) See the yticklabel for subplot (3, 1, 1) which is created by demo 
> ("subplot", 1)
> 
I cannot confirm this problem. On my machine both the plot on the window
and the png output are correct.

> (2) The ylabels for all subplots are too tight. This can be see in either 
> demo, demo ("subplot", 1:2)
> 
Yes you are right, but this is not a regression. ylabels always used to
be too tight to the axes on the png output. If you consider the plot in
the window they are not so tight. Actually this is a issue in gl2ps that
I would like to file a bug report for, but it is not new.

> Ben
> 

Kostas