#4529: Implement plots with logarithmic scale
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: ronanpaixao | Owner: ronanpaixao
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.1
Component: graphics | Resolution:
Keywords: plot log scale | Work issues: convenience functions
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Authors: Punarbasu Purkayastha | Merged in:
Dependencies: #12974 | Stopgaps:
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> I had thought about it. My decision was to silently ignore this error
because it is not fatal in any way and we handle it properly (i.e. we
ignore it and do the right thing).
>
> '''Edit:''' This seems to be the same behavior as in matplotlib.
Okay, just asking. Maybe this should be documented (that is, explained
that it's ok that no error is raised).
> Well, except for `subplot`, the rest of the arguments are alphabetically
arranged. :) Personally, I find it quite hard to find out where a
particular function or argument is present in a typical Sage code. There
is no particular manner in which the functions are arranged. Especially in
several thousand line files like graphics.py it becomes hard to scroll
around and edit code.
Oh yeah, it's REALLY hard to find stuff - you just have to get used to it.
Ok.
> I will add some more.
Great.
> Yes. I have no idea what it was for. It is dead code, so I removed it.
Excellent.
> If the API changes (which seems unlikely to me), then the fix will be
very easy too.
I think kini explained this sufficiently in comment:41. I don't care
which way it's done.
> > * I wonder about the not setting of the spines outward when the axes
shouldn't cross. Here is an example which serves the point:
> I will have to see how to handle this. Messing around with the spines
was one of the primary reasons why setting scale wasn't working - the
"converting masked to int" error.
I see. It would be good to have consistency, since we went to some
trouble to make them not cross any more.
> I think it is up to the user to either change their range, or their
base, or provide custom ticks.
Ah! You would think so. But we actually raise an error in the current
code in precisely this situation. Presumably the code would be easy to
just reuse?
> > But even with all of these comments, and waiting for the post-poll
patch, '''fantastic''' job on this. Someone had to come along to finally
wrap this for us, it's been requested zillions of times, and this is very
worth the effort, thank you so much.
>
> Thanks. I needed it for my own research! :)
Always good to have a good motivator! I've found that using things in
class or for some random voting theory thing has ... enhanced my
motivation to work on a topic.
Looking forward to seeing the global functions.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4529#comment:42>
Sage <http://www.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.
