[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks again Eric,
>
> Your examples are exactly what I was after.
Glad to hear it!
> My colleague was hypothesizing that there's probably a less-than instead of a
> less-than-or-equal somewhere, if it is a bug.
>
That was part of it, but it was a little more subtle
Thanks again Eric,
Your examples are exactly what I was after.
My colleague was hypothesizing that there's probably a less-than instead of a
less-than-or-equal somewhere, if it is a bug.
regards,
Gary
Eric Firing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Thanks Eric.
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks Eric.
>
> However, when I specify the same number of levels as suggested, contourf
> divides this example into three regions, with a diagonal 'stripe' instead of
> a clean boundary, so I guess I'm asking whether it's possible to trick
> contourf into generating
Thanks Eric.
However, when I specify the same number of levels as suggested, contourf
divides this example into three regions, with a diagonal 'stripe' instead of a
clean boundary, so I guess I'm asking whether it's possible to trick contourf
into generating a single boundary between the two re
I'm notice that contourf behaves differently to contour by default in
where it decides to position contours. For example, using pylab, if you try
a=tri(10)
contourf(a,0)
contour(a,1)
I'd have expected the contours to line up, but they don't. Is there a
way to get contourf to place its contours
