I don't approve this commit (https://codereview.scilab.org/#/c/20879/8)
which was merged just before the release (I didn't even have the time to
give it a -1). It represents a complete breakdown with the spirit of
"plot", whose help page says "plot has been rebuild to better handle
Matlab syntax. To improve graphical compatibility, Matlab users should
use plot (rather than plot2d)". Until now, the behavior of plot was
customized by means of "propertyName/value" pairs given after the (x,y)
With this new logflags syntax, we have an optionnal first argument of
"value" type without its "propertyName", moreover this is a "value" of
an Axes property. At worse, but it would not have been more coherent,
the expected feature could have been implemented as a pair
"log_flags",string among other "propertyName/value".
plot() had the merit of being more user friendly that plot2d(). With
this commit, it started its convergence towards plot2d(), which is not a
reference of user friendliness. One implicit rule is: when we introduce
functions with Matlab's functions names and trying to emulate some of
its features, then the Scilab function has to respect the subset of the
Matlab API it implements and not mix with custom Scilab syntax. There
are plenty of such functions in Scilab and this is a pity. We have
implemented plot(), mesh(), surf(), light() and instead of breaking
plot() to allow logarithmic plots it would have been simpler to emulate
the corresponding functions in Matlab, namely, semilogx(), semilogy(),
loglog(). So I hope that this commit will be quickly reverted in favor
of https://codereview.scilab.org/#/c/21436/, in order to prevent bad
habits of average users who could start using the logflags syntax.
Ingénieur de recherche
EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable
Département Génie des Procédés Industriels
Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne
CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex
Tel : +33(0)344234688
dev mailing list
This thread was on Bugzilla for more than 4 years, and the commit was on review for a full year.
This feature is completely back-compatible. It breaks nothing.
About any "spirit" : The only one that i know -- and it has always been very explicit -- is to improve Scilab by all possible and relevant ways.
IMHO in no way considering Scilab as a museum of features coming from anywhere else, or even internal, as in a showcase preventing any forthcoming changes -- could be considered as a way for improving Scilab.
The new "logflags" argument is actually badly named in the documentation. It must rather be seen as the initial implementation of a more extended "AxesSpec" argument, as "LineSpec" already exists and makes plot() much more handy than plot2d(). Simply, to me, the priority was to transfer the plot2d() log feature to plot(), as a first step. Indeed, it was the only feature missing to plot() that somewhat made me sticking to plot2d().
plot() can still be improved in many ways, without breaking anything. Just about this axesSpec (a report should be posted), here are some ideas to go on designing it:
You seem to fear other plot2d() extra options. As you, i would
regret strf and nax ones, whose names and encoding are very
criptic, and just impossible to remember. There were likely
designed before graphical properties were implemented to address
them in a detailed way.
About any semilogx, semilogy, loglog functions:
When in 2D 3 functions can be simply replaced with 3 understandable values of a single option in an existing function, that just tells that they are completely useless.
Who would tell that in 3D we would have to create 7 separate functions to deal with all x/y/z log/normal possible combinations? So why doing it in 2D?
And why only for the log status? Then, in the same way, why not creating some invXplot(), invYplot(), invXYplot(), to directly plot inverted axes, and so, of course, invSemilogX(), etc..?
To me, all this is just meaningless.
Now, if former matlabers wish to still use their prefered former functions, of course adding them in an external compatibility toolbox is possible, as you did in plotlib.
By the way, similar functions already exist in Scilab, as mtlb_semilogx, mtlb_semilogy, mtlb_loglog, in the m2sci module.
We can't on one hand make strong efforts to remove all existing duplicates or uselessly split features, and on the other one make strong efforts to build new ones as somewhat strange and absurd ones that already exist.
At least, if so, personnally i would not go on about any cleaning and clarifying task in Scilab.
This is why, to me, the introduced AxesSpec feature is great, clear, fully enabled, and already complete for log/lin tuning at calling time.
While i am sorry to still not understanding your point.
Le 13/03/2020 à 11:18, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :
dev mailing list
Le 03/06/2020 à 13:01, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
That's where we definitively do not agree. To me, specification of Axes properties should not be given as explicit arguments to plot(), which accepts polyline properties.
Sorry, but using a complicated multi-character string would be a
regression compared to setting correctly documented properties of
Axes (before or afterwards). The time where we could only use one
(complicated) string to speficity many stuff has gone...
Haha, I like your sense of humor...
So do I...
-- Stéphane Mottelet Ingénieur de recherche EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable Département Génie des Procédés Industriels Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex Tel : +33(0)344234688 http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet
dev mailing list
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|