On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:56:19PM -0500, John Hunter wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Friedrich Hagedorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:20:23AM +0200, Friedrich Hagedorn wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I think the following is'nt right:
> >>
> >> In [1]: plot([1,2,
qEric Firing wrote:
> Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> Yes, it looks like if it were an "unsigned int", we would have been
>> okay. That looks like (essentially) what your patch does, but in a
>> C++ idiom. I'll submit your patch and put a note out to the Windows
>> guys to help test it. There's
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Friedrich Hagedorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:20:23AM +0200, Friedrich Hagedorn wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think the following is'nt right:
>>
>> In [1]: plot([1,2,3])
>> Out[1]: []
>>
>> In [2]: ylim(-4,4)
>> Out[2]: (-4, 4)
>>
>> In [3]:
Eric Firing wrote:
> Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> Yes, it looks like if it were an "unsigned int", we would have been
>> okay. That looks like (essentially) what your patch does, but in a
>> C++ idiom. I'll submit your patch and put a note out to the Windows
>> guys to help test it. There's a
Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Yes, it looks like if it were an "unsigned int", we would have been
> okay. That looks like (essentially) what your patch does, but in a C++
> idiom. I'll submit your patch and put a note out to the Windows guys to
> help test it. There's a good chance that if it c
Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Yes, it looks like if it were an "unsigned int", we would have been
> okay. That looks like (essentially) what your patch does, but in a C++
> idiom. I'll submit your patch and put a note out to the Windows guys to
> help test it. There's a good chance that if it c
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Matthias Michler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Jon,
>
> maybe I don't undestand correctly, but try to use more space left of the axes
> to avoid the disappering of the ylabel like:
> ax1 = fig.add_axes([0.3, 0.7, 0.6, 0.2])
> instead of
> ax1 = fig.add_axes([0.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Jon Choy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone tell me how to position the title? When I do a multiple
> plots, the title ends up in my top plot. I position the plot locations
> using the following:
>
> ax1 =fig.add_axes([0.2, 0.8, 0.65, 0.05], **axprops)
> ax2=f
Can someone tell me how to position the title? When I do a multiple
plots, the title ends up in my top plot. I position the plot locations
using the following:
ax1 =fig.add_axes([0.2, 0.8, 0.65, 0.05], **axprops)
ax2=fig.add_axes([0.2,0.75,0.65,0.05],**axprops)
No matter where I position these ax
Hello Jon,
maybe I don't undestand correctly, but try to use more space left of the axes
to avoid the disappering of the ylabel like:
ax1 = fig.add_axes([0.3, 0.7, 0.6, 0.2])
instead of
ax1 = fig.add_axes([0.1, 0.7, 0.8, 0.2]) .
That should be a solution, if you have not too different (consideri
Yes, it looks like if it were an "unsigned int", we would have been
okay. That looks like (essentially) what your patch does, but in a C++
idiom. I'll submit your patch and put a note out to the Windows guys to
help test it. There's a good chance that if it compiles at all, it
should work.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:20:23AM +0200, Friedrich Hagedorn wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think the following is'nt right:
>
> In [1]: plot([1,2,3])
> Out[1]: []
>
> In [2]: ylim(-4,4)
> Out[2]: (-4, 4)
>
> In [3]: axhline()
> Out[3]:
>
> In [4]: ylim()
> Out[4]: (0.0, 3.0)
With the attached patch
Hello,
I think the following is'nt right:
In [1]: plot([1,2,3])
Out[1]: []
In [2]: ylim(-4,4)
Out[2]: (-4, 4)
In [3]: axhline()
Out[3]:
In [4]: ylim()
Out[4]: (0.0, 3.0)
By,
Friedrich
-
This SF.net email is sponsored
Hi Jon,
On Thursday 15 May 2008 03:17:29 Jon Choy wrote:
> I maybe asking a dumb question, forgive me I'm a novice. I try to add
> a ylabel and the left portion of the signal name is cut off when it is
> plotted. I can't seem to find the option for displaying the whole
> signal. Or do I need to re
14 matches
Mail list logo
