#5448: [with patch, needs work] rework save/show in plot, use Matplotlib's axes
code, upgrade matplotlib
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mhansen | Owner: mhansen
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.1.2
Component: graphics | Keywords:
Reviewer: | Author:
Merged: |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by kcrisman):
Replying to [comment:11 jason]:
> Thanks for looking at this! I haven't had time to come back to it yet
(our semester started...)
>
> Replying to [comment:10 kcrisman]:
> > 1. When using pointsize, matplotlib axes (or the way in which they are
used) has some whitespace cutting off points, for example when pointsize
is large (20 worked for me, but unfortunately I can't cut and paste and
example here).
>
> On the one hand, I can turn off clipping. However, that tends to make
really ugly plots when you have frame axes (since then the dots go outside
of the frames). On the other hand, we can automatically enlarge the plot
axes (so that if you request -3..3, it might actually cover -3.5..3.5).
This could be frustrating, but is sort of what happens now. I guess you
have to make a choice between things extending beyond your plot (no
clipping) or extending your plot. For right now, I was hoping that people
would just make their ranges a bit bigger by hand.
Definitely should be automatic, I think, if it's already-existing
behavior.
>
>
>
> >
> > 2. I'm not sure I like the non-intersecting axes on regular plots.
That is weird, especially in graphs like the plot of x squared type
things. plot(x**2,0,1) looks great; plot(x**2,-1,1) looks... interesting.
>
> Yeah, it's a bit different, but after playing with it for a while, I
liked it. At a glance, it oriented me to what I was looking at and how it
was compared to the infinite plane. This is definitely something that
should go up for a vote.
I'm not sure what you are looking at. The axes do not actually cross!
That is bad, imho.
>
> Also, I'd like to add an option for a custom crossing point. That would
be another 5 lines of code, maybe.
>
Yeah, that would be good, though hopefully not often needed.
>
>
> >
> > 4. The two zeros where axes intersect is distracting. I'm not sure
what else to say about that, other than that it's true. This is
especially true when the graph gets close to the origin. Of course, the
reason for labeling it has been discussed elsewhere - it just may have to
get "smart". Maybe when the origin IS the intersection point of the axes
(as one might expect), this could be tacitly omitted?
>
> It would be easy to omit one or both of these zeros in these cases.
>
Something to think about. Presumably the other labels would make it clear
it's a zero.
> >
> > 6. Ironically, switching slope fields to normal (not frame) axes is
worse, because it's hard to see the numbers with any reasonably density of
the points for the slopes.
>
>
> and your proposed fix is...?
>
Using frames again for slope fields (the previous behavior).
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5448#comment:12>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
