Jason Grout wrote: > CCing sage-devel since this has turned into a devel discussion. The > original thread is on sage-support. > > Joel B. Mohler wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 April 2008 05:20:47 pm Joel B. Mohler wrote: >>> On Tuesday 01 April 2008 04:45:16 pm alex clemesha wrote: >>>> With respect to the 'goal' of Sage's plotting (follow Mma), >>>> I would say this is definitley a bug. >>>> >>>> People with 'violent' feelings about this apsect of the plotting >>>> might want to change certain features of the plot code once and for all >>>> :) >>> Well, as I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread, I wasn't sure what >>> was intentional design. >>> >>> This thread >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/c7445f921c8f >>> 0e85/1c7420b369bc7baa left me quite confused when I complained the first >>> time. >>> >>> I do have a patch which I apply everytime I have a critical output quality >>> plotting session. Actually, that patch is in the mentioned thread. It's >>> quick and dirty, but it removes all extra margins (I think it has to touch >>> 3 places in the code -- i.e. 3 extra margin padding code-points -- really >>> quite grotesque, and, I couldn't believe it was all by accident.) >> Perhaps I should add here that I'm happy to produce a patch for this, but I >> didn't really feel like my ideals were the design goals of this plotting >> code. That's why I didn't submit any patches earlier. The patch in that >> other thread really is not intended to be applied -- I wrote it to do what >> *I* wanted with no regards for any other flexible functionality. >> >> If I feel like we have a consensus on design, I will enshrine that design in >> a >> patch -- although, I'd be happy if someone beat me to it. I don't know that >> I myself have any specific design goals for this particular point aside from >> making the margins exactly what I say the margins are supposed to be -- It >> could be that "exactly what I say" is a bit more nebulous than I'm aware of. > > > I played around with it for a bit this afternoon. I figured out one > place to change, but the frame messed things up and I didn't see where > to fix the margins added by the frame in the short time I looked at it. > > I was thinking of setting an explicit_ymin and explicit_ymax and if > those existed, no auto-tuning would be done, or something like that. > You've already worked on this, so no doubt you'd beat me to a patch :). > > While we're on the issue, it seems very clunky to have the parameter > names called "ymin" and "ymax"; what if my variable isn't "y"? I'd like > "plot_range=(-0.5, 0.5)" instead (or even "vertical_range", if we wanted > to be extremely explicit). Again, for reference, in Mma it is > "PlotRange". The Mma PlotRange parameter is quite a bit more flexible, > though: > > http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/PlotRange.html?q=PlotRange&lang=en >
Also, Mma has a PlotRangePadding option, which seems to address the issue that is noted above. http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/PlotRangePadding.html Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
