You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(33) |
Dec
(20) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(43) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(61) |
Aug
(44) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(82) |
Nov
(97) |
Dec
(47) |
2005 |
Jan
(77) |
Feb
(143) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(31) |
May
(93) |
Jun
(93) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(78) |
Sep
(56) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(72) |
Dec
(75) |
2006 |
Jan
(116) |
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(181) |
Apr
(171) |
May
(112) |
Jun
(86) |
Jul
(91) |
Aug
(111) |
Sep
(77) |
Oct
(72) |
Nov
(57) |
Dec
(51) |
2007 |
Jan
(64) |
Feb
(116) |
Mar
(70) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(53) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(519) |
Aug
(151) |
Sep
(132) |
Oct
(74) |
Nov
(282) |
Dec
(190) |
2008 |
Jan
(141) |
Feb
(67) |
Mar
(69) |
Apr
(96) |
May
(227) |
Jun
(404) |
Jul
(399) |
Aug
(96) |
Sep
(120) |
Oct
(205) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(261) |
2009 |
Jan
(136) |
Feb
(136) |
Mar
(119) |
Apr
(124) |
May
(155) |
Jun
(98) |
Jul
(136) |
Aug
(292) |
Sep
(174) |
Oct
(126) |
Nov
(126) |
Dec
(79) |
2010 |
Jan
(109) |
Feb
(83) |
Mar
(139) |
Apr
(91) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(164) |
Jul
(184) |
Aug
(146) |
Sep
(163) |
Oct
(128) |
Nov
(70) |
Dec
(73) |
2011 |
Jan
(235) |
Feb
(165) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(74) |
Jun
(118) |
Jul
(65) |
Aug
(75) |
Sep
(162) |
Oct
(94) |
Nov
(48) |
Dec
(44) |
2012 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(40) |
Mar
(88) |
Apr
(35) |
May
(52) |
Jun
(69) |
Jul
(90) |
Aug
(123) |
Sep
(112) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(105) |
Dec
(116) |
2013 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(78) |
Apr
(43) |
May
(61) |
Jun
(53) |
Jul
(147) |
Aug
(85) |
Sep
(83) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(27) |
2014 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(49) |
Apr
(17) |
May
(29) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(52) |
Sep
(35) |
Oct
(47) |
Nov
(110) |
Dec
(27) |
2015 |
Jan
(50) |
Feb
(93) |
Mar
(96) |
Apr
(30) |
May
(55) |
Jun
(83) |
Jul
(44) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(5) |
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
(1) |
2016 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(1) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
|
Aug
(3) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2017 |
Jan
|
Feb
(5) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
1
(6) |
2
(5) |
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
(4) |
7
(3) |
8
|
9
(5) |
10
|
11
|
12
(1) |
13
|
14
|
15
(4) |
16
(1) |
17
(4) |
18
(1) |
19
(4) |
20
(4) |
21
(5) |
22
(1) |
23
(3) |
24
(6) |
25
(1) |
26
(19) |
27
(13) |
28
(9) |
|
|
|
|
I am generating a few hundred graphs and doing so takes on the order of about 10-15 minutes. Which seems to me rather slow. When I profile my cod= e it identifies the calls to get_yticklabels and get_xticklabels as taking over 90% of the time. This seems strange but my calls to these functions are merely a sort round about way of setting the font size of the axis tick labels and suppressing the text for the xticklabels. Is there a more efficient and cleaner way to do this? artist.setp(axes.get_yticklabels(), visible=3DTrue, fontsize=3D7) artist.setp(axes.get_xticklabels(), visible=3DFalse) I am using matplotlib version 0.83.1 and the .png format for my output, if that helps. Though the profiler seems to suggest that the output is blazingly fast and it is only these calls to the get_?ticklabels that are slow.
Note: The "crash" only occurs if you run the script and press directly the replot button. If you click on the second page of the notebook then back to the first and "replot" no problem. Though no problem at all if the "# GTK+ 2.x style draw()" is used in matplotlib_gtk.py Regards, David 2006年2月19日, David TREMOUILLES <dav...@gm...>: > > Here is a quick and dirty minimal code reproducing the problem. > > David > > 2006年2月17日, Steve Chaplin <ste...@ya...>: > > > > On Wed, 2006年02月15日 at 20:36 -0800, > > mat...@li... wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm using matplotlib figures in several places at a time in my GT= K > > > > > based app (means different page in a notebook). > > > I have trace a bug I partially solved but still doubting if it is a > > > matplotlib bug or a bad design of my app. > > > > > > Matplotlib 0.86.2 > > > pygtk-2.8.4 > > > gtk+-2.8.6 > > > > > > Here is the problem: > > > > > > in matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py file, in > > > class FigureCanvasGTK (gtk.DrawingArea, FigureCanvasBase): > > > ... in: > > > > > > def draw(self): > > > # synchronous window redraw (like GTK+ 1.2 used to do) > > > # Note: this does not follow the usual way that GTK redraws, > > > # which is asynchronous redraw using calls to > > > gtk_widget_queue_draw(), > > > # which triggers an expose-event > > > > > > # GTK+ 2.x style draw() > > > 1- self._need_redraw =3D True > > > 1- self.queue_draw() > > > > > > # synchronous draw (needed for animation) > > > 2- x, y, w, h =3D self.allocation > > > 2- if w<3 or h<3: return # empty fig > > > > > > 2- self._pixmap_prepare (w, h) > > > 2- self._render_figure(self._pixmap, w, h) > > > 2- self._need_redraw =3D False > > > 2- self.window.draw_drawable (self.style.fg_gc[self.state], > > > 2- self._pixmap, 0, 0, 0, 0, w, h) > > > > > > > > > If I use method 1- (and comment 2-) no problem, all run smoothly... > > > But using the default method, switching on method 2- (and comment 1-) > > > I get the followig error message when trying to redraw one of the > > > figure > > > (the figure is plotted correctly the first time. No change made to th= e > > > figure, just redrawing...) > > > > > > ***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py:298: > > > GtkWarning: gdk_pixmap_new: assertion `(drawable !=3D NULL) || (depth= !=3D > > > > > -1)' failed > > > self._pixmap_height) > > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > > ... > > > self.canvas_leak.draw() > > > File > > > "***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py", lin= e > > > > > 250, in draw > > > self._pixmap_prepare (w, h) > > > File > > > "***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py", lin= e > > > 298, in _pixmap_prepare > > > self._pixmap_height) > > > RuntimeError: could not create GdkPixmap object > > > > > > Somebody has a clue ??? > > > > > Its difficult to say if its bug in backend_gtk.py, it depends on exactl= y > > what your application is doing. You would need to post a minimal test > > case that demonstrates the bug so we could see whats going on. > > > > Steve > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > >
Here is a quick and dirty minimal code reproducing the problem. David 2006年2月17日, Steve Chaplin <ste...@ya...>: > > On Wed, 2006年02月15日 at 20:36 -0800, > mat...@li... wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm using matplotlib figures in several places at a time in my GTK > > based app (means different page in a notebook). > > I have trace a bug I partially solved but still doubting if it is a > > matplotlib bug or a bad design of my app. > > > > Matplotlib 0.86.2 > > pygtk-2.8.4 > > gtk+-2.8.6 > > > > Here is the problem: > > > > in matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py file, in > > class FigureCanvasGTK (gtk.DrawingArea, FigureCanvasBase): > > ... in: > > > > def draw(self): > > # synchronous window redraw (like GTK+ 1.2 used to do) > > # Note: this does not follow the usual way that GTK redraws, > > # which is asynchronous redraw using calls to > > gtk_widget_queue_draw(), > > # which triggers an expose-event > > > > # GTK+ 2.x style draw() > > 1- self._need_redraw = True > > 1- self.queue_draw() > > > > # synchronous draw (needed for animation) > > 2- x, y, w, h = self.allocation > > 2- if w<3 or h<3: return # empty fig > > > > 2- self._pixmap_prepare (w, h) > > 2- self._render_figure(self._pixmap, w, h) > > 2- self._need_redraw = False > > 2- self.window.draw_drawable (self.style.fg_gc[self.state], > > 2- self._pixmap, 0, 0, 0, 0, w, h) > > > > > > If I use method 1- (and comment 2-) no problem, all run smoothly... > > But using the default method, switching on method 2- (and comment 1-) > > I get the followig error message when trying to redraw one of the > > figure > > (the figure is plotted correctly the first time. No change made to the > > figure, just redrawing...) > > > > ***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py:298: > > GtkWarning: gdk_pixmap_new: assertion `(drawable != NULL) || (depth != > > -1)' failed > > self._pixmap_height) > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > ... > > self.canvas_leak.draw() > > File > > "***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py", line > > 250, in draw > > self._pixmap_prepare (w, h) > > File > > "***/python2.4/site-packages/matplotlib/backends/backend_gtk.py", line > > 298, in _pixmap_prepare > > self._pixmap_height) > > RuntimeError: could not create GdkPixmap object > > > > Somebody has a clue ??? > > > Its difficult to say if its bug in backend_gtk.py, it depends on exactly > what your application is doing. You would need to post a minimal test > case that demonstrates the bug so we could see whats going on. > > Steve > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > >
Hi, I've got a situation where I'd like to create several instances of Axes but not set their position until later. It seems I have to jump through hoops to actually create a new axes, contrary to my expectation: $ ipython -pylab In [1]: a=axes() In [2]: a Out[2]: <matplotlib.axes.Subplot instance at 0x2aaab158a758> In [3]: b=axes() In [4]: b Out[4]: <matplotlib.axes.Subplot instance at 0x2aaab158a758> I can see what's happening here: 1. pylab.axes() calls subplot(111) when no arguments are given. 2. subplot(111) uses some smarts to figure out if an Axes instance for subplot(111) has already been given and, if so, returns a reference to that. Both points 1 and 2 seem reasonable on their own, but when combined, as in my example, the outcome is not intuitive. Is this behavior desired? Does anyone depend on it? It goes deeper -- even Figure.add_axes() returns an old Axes instance if the rect given has been seen before. I'd argue that people delving into the OO innards of matplotlib should be able to handle keeping a reference to instances of Axes they've created. Can we change this behavior or would it cause massive breakage somewhere? Cheers! Andrew