On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM -0400, Hezekiah M. Carty wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Andrew Ross
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hez,
>>> I've commited these changes with just a couple of modifications.
>>> Note
>>>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM -0400, Hezekiah M. Carty wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Andrew Ross
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hez,
> > I've commited these changes with just a couple of modifications. Note
> > that in C source files we use C style comments like /* */ a
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Andrew Ross
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Hez,
> I've commited these changes with just a couple of modifications. Note
> that in C source files we use C style comments like /* */ and not
> C++ comments like //. Some examples of the latter have crept into the
Hi Hez,
Thanks for pointing this one out. Sorry I've not responded sooner, but
I've been away. I suppose ideally plcont should do the same thing as
plshades. Unfortunately for historical reasons plcont and plshades take
different arguments. Since we don't know the max / min range for the
axis in
I ran in to a problem with plcont while translating example 16 to
OCaml. While writing the OCaml PLplot bindings I mistakenly assumed
that the plcont function would accept NULL for its pltr and pltr_data
arguments and fall back on a default transform of some sort. However,
setting pltr to NULL ga
