matplotlib-devel Mailing List for matplotlib

On 04/01/2011 10:47 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> Just had a thought and I am curious about what others think.
>
> Now that we have agreed that calling a plotting function with empty data
> should always be considered valid, should it also automatically advance
> the colorcycle? I think it should.
I agree. Fortunately, that is the present behavior, at least with this 
simple test:
plot([1,2,3])
plot([], [])
plot([3,2,1])
Eric
>
> Here is a use-case: consider a user who is plotting temperature in three
> regions over time in one subplot, and surface pressure over time for
> those same three regions. Let's say the thermometer in second region
> started reporting only NaNs. If empty data did not advance the color
> cycle, then the line for the temperature plot of the third region will
> be same as the line for the pressure plot for the second region, leading
> to mis-leading interpretation that the thermometer in the third region
> was the one that broke.
>
> This is a really simple example, but I can see this being harder to
> ensure for more complicated plots the depend on the automatic color cycling.
>
> Ben Root
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
> Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
> WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and
> publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Matplotlib-devel mailing list
> Mat...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel

Just had a thought and I am curious about what others think.
Now that we have agreed that calling a plotting function with empty data
should always be considered valid, should it also automatically advance the
colorcycle? I think it should.
Here is a use-case: consider a user who is plotting temperature in three
regions over time in one subplot, and surface pressure over time for those
same three regions. Let's say the thermometer in second region started
reporting only NaNs. If empty data did not advance the color cycle, then
the line for the temperature plot of the third region will be same as the
line for the pressure plot for the second region, leading to mis-leading
interpretation that the thermometer in the third region was the one that
broke.
This is a really simple example, but I can see this being harder to ensure
for more complicated plots the depend on the automatic color cycling.
Ben Root

On 04/01/2011 05:01 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> I'm going through and removing old and deprecated information from the
> source tree.
>
> I'm noticing that there are two makefiles for OS-X, one at ./make.osx
> and one in release/osx/Makefile. The former was updated in Sep 2010,
> the latter in Mar 2010. Our installation (installing.rst) recommends
> using the one in release/osx.
>
> Also, the README.txt at the root of the source tree seems to be related
> to the Mac OS-X binary installer. We should probably move this
> elsewhere and put generic information in this file.
>
> I'm not actually trying to build on OS-X, I haven't in many years, and I
> haven't really followed any of the mailing list threads on this topic --
> so maybe that makes me a good example of a user coming to this blind and
> saying: "hey, there's two ways to do it, which is the right one?"
>
> Mike
>
I think they can and should be consolidated, or at least their core 
functionality should be consolidated. release/osx/Makefile was for 
official releases, so it includes an "upload" target; ./make.osx was for 
users to use in building from the repo, so it has gotten most of the 
updating attention.
If the developers with the most OS-X expertise (and that does not 
include me) could pool that expertise and come up with a more solid 
framework and documentation for building under OS-X, it might relieve a 
lot of the frustration that has been expressed on the mailing lists.
Eric

I'm going through and removing old and deprecated information from the 
source tree.
I'm noticing that there are two makefiles for OS-X, one at ./make.osx 
and one in release/osx/Makefile. The former was updated in Sep 2010, 
the latter in Mar 2010. Our installation (installing.rst) recommends 
using the one in release/osx.
Also, the README.txt at the root of the source tree seems to be related 
to the Mac OS-X binary installer. We should probably move this 
elsewhere and put generic information in this file.
I'm not actually trying to build on OS-X, I haven't in many years, and I 
haven't really followed any of the mailing list threads on this topic -- 
so maybe that makes me a good example of a user coming to this blind and 
saying: "hey, there's two ways to do it, which is the right one?"
Mike
-- 
Michael Droettboom
Science Software Branch
Space Telescope Science Institute
Baltimore, Maryland, USA