You can subscribe to this list here.
2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(12) |
Oct
(56) |
Nov
(65) |
Dec
(37) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004 |
Jan
(59) |
Feb
(78) |
Mar
(153) |
Apr
(205) |
May
(184) |
Jun
(123) |
Jul
(171) |
Aug
(156) |
Sep
(190) |
Oct
(120) |
Nov
(154) |
Dec
(223) |
2005 |
Jan
(184) |
Feb
(267) |
Mar
(214) |
Apr
(286) |
May
(320) |
Jun
(299) |
Jul
(348) |
Aug
(283) |
Sep
(355) |
Oct
(293) |
Nov
(232) |
Dec
(203) |
2006 |
Jan
(352) |
Feb
(358) |
Mar
(403) |
Apr
(313) |
May
(165) |
Jun
(281) |
Jul
(316) |
Aug
(228) |
Sep
(279) |
Oct
(243) |
Nov
(315) |
Dec
(345) |
2007 |
Jan
(260) |
Feb
(323) |
Mar
(340) |
Apr
(319) |
May
(290) |
Jun
(296) |
Jul
(221) |
Aug
(292) |
Sep
(242) |
Oct
(248) |
Nov
(242) |
Dec
(332) |
2008 |
Jan
(312) |
Feb
(359) |
Mar
(454) |
Apr
(287) |
May
(340) |
Jun
(450) |
Jul
(403) |
Aug
(324) |
Sep
(349) |
Oct
(385) |
Nov
(363) |
Dec
(437) |
2009 |
Jan
(500) |
Feb
(301) |
Mar
(409) |
Apr
(486) |
May
(545) |
Jun
(391) |
Jul
(518) |
Aug
(497) |
Sep
(492) |
Oct
(429) |
Nov
(357) |
Dec
(310) |
2010 |
Jan
(371) |
Feb
(657) |
Mar
(519) |
Apr
(432) |
May
(312) |
Jun
(416) |
Jul
(477) |
Aug
(386) |
Sep
(419) |
Oct
(435) |
Nov
(320) |
Dec
(202) |
2011 |
Jan
(321) |
Feb
(413) |
Mar
(299) |
Apr
(215) |
May
(284) |
Jun
(203) |
Jul
(207) |
Aug
(314) |
Sep
(321) |
Oct
(259) |
Nov
(347) |
Dec
(209) |
2012 |
Jan
(322) |
Feb
(414) |
Mar
(377) |
Apr
(179) |
May
(173) |
Jun
(234) |
Jul
(295) |
Aug
(239) |
Sep
(276) |
Oct
(355) |
Nov
(144) |
Dec
(108) |
2013 |
Jan
(170) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(204) |
Apr
(133) |
May
(142) |
Jun
(89) |
Jul
(160) |
Aug
(180) |
Sep
(69) |
Oct
(136) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(32) |
2014 |
Jan
(71) |
Feb
(90) |
Mar
(161) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(78) |
Jun
(94) |
Jul
(60) |
Aug
(83) |
Sep
(102) |
Oct
(132) |
Nov
(154) |
Dec
(96) |
2015 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(138) |
Mar
(176) |
Apr
(132) |
May
(119) |
Jun
(124) |
Jul
(77) |
Aug
(31) |
Sep
(34) |
Oct
(22) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(9) |
2016 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(17) |
Mar
(10) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(4) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(9) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
2017 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(7) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(5) |
May
|
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
2018 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2020 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2025 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
1
(2) |
2
(3) |
3
|
4
(3) |
5
(11) |
6
(3) |
7
(2) |
8
(6) |
9
(6) |
10
(8) |
11
(3) |
12
(7) |
13
(8) |
14
(5) |
15
(11) |
16
(11) |
17
(3) |
18
(2) |
19
(7) |
20
(11) |
21
(6) |
22
(5) |
23
(1) |
24
|
25
|
26
(6) |
27
(3) |
28
(8) |
29
(2) |
30
(1) |
|
Hi! I was looking through the sample doc tutorial: http://matplotlib.org/sampledoc/ and found that the link to the hard copy of the documentation is missing. Is there a more recent link? Best, William
Dear all, I'm trying to to show where one set of values have NaN's on the contour plot of another set of values. I do this by creating a mask as such: fld = randn(4,4) fld[:2,:2] = np.nan mask[mask==0] = np.nan contourf(arange(4),arange(4),fld) contourf(arange(4),arange(4),mask) The problem is that the mask patch doesn't cover the empty space in the fld contour. Is there any way to make this happen? My ultimate goal is something like this: fld2 = randn(4,4) contourf(arange(4),arange(4),fld2) contourf(arange(4),arange(4),mask,[1,1], extend='both', colors='w', alpha=0.5) to present where fld has NaN's on the fld2 plot. Many thanks in advance! Bror Jonsson "If you have a garden and a Library, You have everything you need." -Cicero ============================================================== Associate Research Scholar Princeton University Department of Geosciences 113 Guyot Hall Princeton, NJ 08544-1003 USA AIM, Skype, gTalk: brorfred Phone: +1-617-818-1096
Hello again > expecting the transparency to "stop" at the layer below the plot and > therefore see the. Sorry, I meant "therefore see the panel". -- Sylvain
Hello I would like some help to understand a problem with matplotlib and wxpython. I am developping a GUI where my plots are embedded on wxPanels on a wxNotebook (tabs). Under Windows, some themes don't use a single colour but a gradient as the tab background. Therefore, I'd like to make the background of my plots transparent. Under Windows XP (whatever the theme), when I set the facecolor of the plot to 'none', the plot background becomes transparent, but the parts of the panel and of the notebook below as well, and I end up seeing other windows behind my GUI or the Windows desktop. I was expecting the transparency to "stop" at the layer below the plot and therefore see the. I did a second experiment, where I overlayed two plots. The top one is larger than the one below. I make the top one partially transparent, to see the one below. The transparency is "stopped" in the area of the inferior plot, I see the desktop on the remaining parts, and where there is no plot the background of my panel. I'm attaching the code for the second experiment. I'm running XP 32bits with the Classic theme, python 2.7.3, matplotlib 1.2.0 and wxpython 2.9.4-msw. Thanks for your help -- Sylvain
Hi All, Hoping someone can help me get a definitive answer to this question. Is draw_if_interactive bad to have in library plotting code? Based on this thread [1], we've been working under the assumption that calling draw_if_interactive in plotting code is bad. Though I'm skeptical that this is the takeaway that we should have. I also asked this question on the IPython mailing list [2] since the recommendation comes from their type of usage, but I'm still not clear. I'll repeat the gist of the question here. We have plotting functions that are designed to update a given axes. I often work in interactive mode, and I'd like it if these functions updated my axes in the way that I expect (and an R user doing plotting in Python would expect). But now I'm forced to litter my user scripts with draw_if_interactive after I call a function I expect to update a plot - say updating a scatter plot with a regression line. Would be harmful to just include these draw_if_interactive calls in our plot functions. To be clear, I never have to call show or draw because I'm working in interactive mode, so the recommendation to just call show() at the end of a script is not what I want. My understanding of the pitfalls is 1) there's a performance hit to calling draw instead of just making one call. This is moot because we're only calling draw_if_interactive - so we assume the user is working interactively and actually wants to do the drawing and doesn't care about the performance hit. And 2) we are assuming that the user has imported and is using pyplot and there are possible side effects. A user wouldn't be using pyplot in a GUI or in some sort of embedded plotting framework. However, my intuition says that if this is the case, draw_if_interactive won't do anything because interactive will be False in these cases. Can someone please help clear this up? Thanks, Skipper [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/pystatsmodels/biNlCvJPNNY/BT7bQJmOa1cJ [2] http://python.6.n6.nabble.com/IPython-User-using-matplotlib-draw-if-interactive-in-library-code-td4991275.html