On 06/28/2010 04:42 PM, butterw wrote: > > Rather than changing the existing xlim, it would be better to create a new > command xlim2 with the desired behaviour (if needed).
Why, specifically in this case? I'm somewhat reluctant to see that proliferation of methods and functions. Is there actually a reasonable use case for the present behavior--is it advantageous under some circumstances? What sort of code is likely to depend on it? Eric > > > > efiring wrote: >> >> The present behavior of set_xlim and set_ylim can be surprising because >> making the values stick for subsequent plotting in the same axes >> requires manually calling set_autoscalex_on(False) etc. It would seem >> more logical if set_xlim itself included the call to turn autoscalex >> off--isn't that what a user would almost always want and expect? >> >> Rectifying this would constitute a significant change affecting some >> existing user code. >> >> What are people's thoughts on this? Should the change made? If so, do >> it abruptly, right now, as part of version 1.0? Or phase it in with a >> temporary kwarg and/or rcparam? It would be nice to avoid all that >> complexity, but may be we can't, except by leaving everything as it is >> now. >> >> Eric >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-devel mailing list Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
