Yes, that was definitely my intention to suggest. It looks to me like
ASCIIPlots.jl and DotPlot.jl solves the same problem in a very similar way,
and whether to use Unicode for higher resolution seems like something I
would expect to be an option.
Anyway, the ultimate goal for ASCII art plots, would be to implement it as
a backend for one of the normal plotting packages.
Ivar
kl. 10:06:42 UTC+2 fredag 23. mai 2014 skrev Tobias Knopp følgende:
>
> I think "merge" was meant as: Lets create one uniform package and join the
> efforts. Since ASCIIPlots is not actively maintained I think it would be
> really great if you could take the lead to make an awsome text plotting
> tool.
>
> I like the name TextPlot by the way.
>
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2014 17:42:06 UTC+2 schrieb Adam Smith:
>>
>> TextPlot seems like a good name.
>>
>> Thanks for the offer on merging, but again, there's really nothing to
>> merge. Adding scatterplots to dotplot will be trivial; I'll do that soon
>> (making dotplot's features a superset of ASCIIPlots). There is nothing
>> compatible/overlapping between these two (small) codebases for merging to
>> make sense.
>>
>> I would be curious what John Myles White thinks about a more complete
>> terminal plotting package for Julia. ASCIIPlots clearly imitates Matlab's
>> plotting functions ("imagesc"), and I was going for something closer to
>> Mathematica or Maple (which are more symbolic-oriented than Matlab), since
>> I think the syntax is prettier. However, I know a large portion of Julia's
>> users are also Matlab users, so if Matlab-compatibility is a goal, you may
>> want to keep the packages separate.
>>
>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:25:01 AM UTC-4, Leah Hanson wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe something like TextPlot would be a good merged name? It conveys
>>> what the package does (text plots) rather than how it does it (Braille
>>> characters).
>>>
>>> Having a more complete plotting package for the terminal would move
>>> towards having a way to make `plot` just work when you start up a Julia
>>> REPL, which I think is a goal. I'd be happy to help merge them, but
>>> probably won't have time for a couple weeks.
>>>
>>> -- Leah
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Adam Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not totally opposed to it, but my initial reaction is not to:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I don't necessarily agree about the name. I personally think
>>>> "dot plot" has a nice ring to it, and it is a more accurate description
>>>> of
>>>> what it does (using Braille characters). This very specifically
>>>> exploits
>>>> Unicode (non-ASCII) characters, so calling it an ASCII plot would be
>>>> misleading (for those who want the restricted character set for some
>>>> reason).
>>>> 2. There's not really a single line of code they have in common, so
>>>> there's nothing to "merge": it would just be a rename. I didn't look at
>>>> the
>>>> code of ASCIIPlots before making it, and we chose completely different
>>>> APIs. For example, ASCIIPlots doesn't have a way to plot functions, and
>>>> DotPlot doesn't (yet) have a way to scatterplot an array.
>>>> 3. They are both quite small and simple (dotplot is ~100 lines of
>>>> code, ascii is ~250); merging would probably be more work than either
>>>> originally took to create.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:31:10 AM UTC-4, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it make sense to merge this functionality into ASCIIPlots? To me
>>>>> that seems like a better name, and John Myles White is likely to be
>>>>> willing
>>>>> to transfer the repository if you want to be the maintainer. That package
>>>>> started from code posted on the mailing list, and the author thought it
>>>>> was
>>>>> a joke. John packaged it for others to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
