Erik Tollerud wrote:
> While going through and updating some scripts to use the new features
> that were recently added to hist(), I found myself very confused by
> the align keywords - I had to go and look at Manuel Metz's post a
> couple weeks ago to believe it wasn't a typo in the documentation.
Hi all
I only read this thread today, and see that we have been battling many
of the same challenges in our documentation efforts. I am glad to see
that you are making such good progress!
2008/6/1 John Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I just realized, though, that I should probably be striving to
Hi,
date2num and num2date perform conversion between datetime and 'days
since 0001-01-01' and vice versa.
For such task, they strictly use ordinal dates for their numeric days,
1 meaning '0001-01-01' by definition.
Thus, date2num(datetime.datetime(1,1,1,0,0,0)) return 1. which is
supposed to mean
On Sunday 01 June 2008 04:10:45 am Pierre Raybaut wrote:
> > Hi Pierre,
> >
> > On Friday 30 May 2008 5:21:01 pm Pierre Raybaut wrote:
> >> > First, I would like to congratulate you for your work on Matplotlib. I
> >> > am using Matplotlib widgets in all my current projects, embedded in
> >> > PyQt
2008/6/3 Darren Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sunday 01 June 2008 04:10:45 am Pierre Raybaut wrote:
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to seem brusque. If there is a problem with
> matplotlib's
> qt4 support, I would prefer to have a chance to look into it before the
> problem is announced to the pyqt comm
Hi,
using an empty mathtext "$$" in labels generates an exception. See
example and traceback below.
/Jörgen
from pylab import *
from numpy import *
x=arange(0,2*pi,0.1)
plot(x,sin(x))
title(r"$$")
show()
Exception in Tkinter callback
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\python25\l
Stephane Raynaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> date2num and num2date perform conversion between datetime and 'days
> since 0001-01-01' and vice versa.
> For such task, they strictly use ordinal dates for their numeric days,
> 1 meaning '0001-01-01' by definition.
> Thus, date2num(datetime.datetime(1,1,1,0,0,0
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John, I suspect you wrote the dates module and use it heavily--what do you
> think about the two methods of bringing the docstring and the behavior into
> alignment? Any problem with fixing the behavior?
The only thing I am
Just a note (that I realize will probably never get 'fixed'):
It would be nice if MPL could support more arbitrary date ranges (such as
negative numeric dates). This comes up more often than you might think.
Try writing a GUI w/ an embedded date plot - you can't switch a plot to date
format until
On Jun 3, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Jörgen Stenarson wrote:
using an empty mathtext "$$" in labels generates an exception. See
example and traceback below.
My guess is that this is a LaTeX error. If you enter $$ in a normal
LaTeX document, you will get:
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode -file-line
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Ted Drain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At some point in the future, I'll put a little test case together to show
> how the problems w/ not supporting a zero date show up in embedded plots.
Actually, when you pass in python datetime objects to mpl, we use the
units
Ted,
I agree entirely--we do need a better date-handling module than what can
be built on the feeble and clumsy datetime standard module. It would be
nice to have this as part of numpy, so it can be vectorized from the
start. I have some code that I use; I will have to check to see what
its
Eric Firing wrote:
> Stephane Raynaud wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> date2num and num2date perform conversion between datetime and 'days
>> since 0001-01-01' and vice versa.
>> For such task, they strictly use ordinal dates for their numeric days,
>> 1 meaning '0001-01-01' by definition.
>> Thus, date2n
Tony Yu skrev:
>
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Jörgen Stenarson wrote:
>> using an empty mathtext "$$" in labels generates an exception. See
>> example and traceback below.
>
> My guess is that this is a LaTeX error. If you enter $$ in a normal
> LaTeX document, you will get:
>
>
I don't think
Mark Bakker wrote:
> I agree that the new logo looks nice, but I also think that
> Rob is right: When you see the logo you wouldn't know that
> we are talking about a general purpose plotting package.
> So the question is: are we going for looks over meaning?
> I guess the other way around would be
15 matches
Mail list logo
