Re: goals for 3.1

[Daniel J Sebald]

Joseph C. Slater PE, PhD wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007, at 2:11 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> > I'd like to have a fairly small list of key goals for 3.1 so that we
> > can make another release 6 months or so after 3.0.  Here's my current
> > list:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >  * Eliminate __gnuplot_X__ functions from Octave
> > <snip>
> >
> > Comments or suggestions?
>
>
> Is there a tangible benefit to doing this? These commands provide a  
> low-level control that seems to be disappearing with the race to  Matlab 
> compatibility. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the existence of  this level 
> of control is a plus. Matlab doesn't generate publication- quality 
> graphics. Not easily, and putting in real labels using latex  
> expressions is still significantly lacking. Octave/gnuplot allows this  
> easily enough, through the ability to specify fonts, include equations  
> (in latex), control the size of the graphic very well. Through  metapost 
> output, tweaking the parameters is available (not as easy  with an eps 
> or PDF output). Will this functionality disappear in the  future?

I'm in this camp.  I'm not so concerned about the naming of the functions, just 
that there is some way of accessing the graphics backend.  If it is a generic 
method and it is undocumented, that'd be fine.  For example, I was hoping that 
something like

plot([0:50]);
fprintf(get(gcf,"__plot_stream__"), "set tics in;\n replot;\n");

would work.  However, it doesn't work quite right.  However, if after those 
commands one does

plot([0:50]);

Then the tics are readjusted.  (I assume that tics are not currently something 
controled in __draw_axis__.)

It seems like there is an issue of Octave buffering those commands and waiting 
until an actual plot command is reissued.

That brings up the fact that "replot" doesn't seem to actually replot.  At 
least, the gnuplot window doesn't come forward which is typically an indication of a 
replot.

John, is replot working the way it should?

Dan