On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
>> This is a worthy goal. One use case I would like to see supported
>> is the sharex/sharey args::
> Sheesh, some people really want everything :)
Yes, you should know better by now than to propose a minor enhancement
Another thoug
John Hunter wrote:
> One other thing: I don't think a tuple is best for the axes
> dimensionality. We always require two and exactly two shape arguments
> (numrows, numcols) so we don't need the flexibility of the tuple in
> the way that numpy.zeros does. And it is easier to type::
>
> fig_sub
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Christopher Barker
wrote:
> John Hunter wrote:
> fig_subplot( (2,) )
>
> If so, then a tuple has a real advantage. If not, then it doesn't make
> much difference, though I still prefer the tuple, as I can imagine that
> I might define that somewhere else, and i
Phillip M. Feldman wrote:
> This sounds great. Thanks!
>
> So far I haven't figured out how to use it. I downloaded the
> matplotlib SVN and installed it, but was not able to find
> "nsper_demo.py".
>
> Phillip
Phillip: Basemap is a separate toolkit, you won't get it from the
matplotlib svn
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:17 PM, John Hunter wrote:
> Perhaps the solution to my sharex conundrum is to support an axes number, eg
>
> ax1, ax2, ax3, ax4 = subplots(4,1, sharex=1)
>
I thought there is no master and slave for an axis-sharing?
If that's the case, maybe "sharex=True" should be suf
Just noticed this when I tried to build (I have numpy from svn):
REQUIRED DEPENDENCIES
* numpy 1.1 or later is required; you have
* 2.0.0.dev8125
:)
--
Download Intel® Pa
On 2010-02-18 16:18 PM, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Just noticed this when I tried to build (I have numpy from svn):
>
> REQUIRED DEPENDENCIES
> * numpy 1.1 or later is required; you have
> * 2.0.0.dev8125
>
> :)
This has been fixed in SVN.
--
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, John Hunter wrote:
> Yes, you should know better by now than to propose a minor enhancement
And you should know by know common sense has somehow been amputated
from my system :)
> Another thought about the interface. How about *just* returning the
> figure i
Howdy
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jae-Joon Lee wrote:
>
> I thought there is no master and slave for an axis-sharing?
> If that's the case, maybe "sharex=True" should be suffice?
I defer to your wisdom here: I had no clue about this, so I went for
the clumsier API. If you are right, it wou
