matplotlib-devel Mailing List for matplotlib

From: ben...@gm... [mailto:ben...@gm...] On Behalf Of Benjamin
Root
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 14:39
 
Thanks for the insightful analysis. Could you file a bug report with some of
this information (at the very least, reference your message on the mailing
list)?
It took me a while to get back to it, but I'm happy to file a report. The
tracker ID is 3062773.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> JJ,
>
>
> I just wanted to raise a question of whether we let Axes3D add itself
>> to its parent (although this is not a bug anymore). If you and others
>> feel okay about it, then that's completely fine with me also.
>>
>
> It sounds like a valid point, worth addressing, but it is one I will leave
> to you, Ben, and Reinier to sort out.
>
> Eric
>
I agree that Axes3D should not add itself to the Figure object anymore. The
original implementation made sense, but now, it is merely legacy cruft that
will need to be eliminated appropriately over time.
There are probably a few minor issues I have before moving forward with a
complete deprecation of the old method of creating a 3d axes (namely the
subplot margins might be too big), but I will leave that to another thread.
Thanks for the patches!
Ben Root

JJ,
> I just wanted to raise a question of whether we let Axes3D add itself
> to its parent (although this is not a bug anymore). If you and others
> feel okay about it, then that's completely fine with me also.
It sounds like a valid point, worth addressing, but it is one I will 
leave to you, Ben, and Reinier to sort out.
Eric

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> I don't think I understand the point you are making here--is it that the
> Axes3D is a lone anomaly?
>
Yes.
And I feel that Axes3D better not add itself to the figure during the
instance initialization. Just a different view of the current bug.
> The main purpose of the changes I made was to clarify the tracking of axes
> by having them internally listed in only one data structure instead of
> always having to add or remove them from three separate structures. Fixing
> the 3D bug was a side-effect. Whether the changes I made were a net
> improvement, or a good design, remains debatable. Criticisms and
> suggestions for improvement or replacement are welcome.
>
I think this is what need to be done and I think you did it right
(thank you for your effort).
I just wanted to raise a question of whether we let Axes3D add itself
to its parent (although this is not a bug anymore). If you and others
feel okay about it, then that's completely fine with me also.
Regards,
-JJ

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> Fixed in 8693.
>
Thanks!
-JJ

On 09/07/2010 10:27 PM, Jae-Joon Lee wrote:
> Eric,
>
> The drawing order of multiple axes in a same figure depends on the
> order of "axes". And this has been the order that axes is added to the
> figure (given that they have same zorder value). However, the current
> implementation does not preserve this order.
Fixed in 8693.
Eric