|
From: | Shai Ayal |
Subject: | Re: graphics future |
Date: | Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:02:56 +0200 |
On 4/26/07, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
On 26-Apr-2007, Shai Ayal wrote: | While I agree that compatibility is important, and what we don't make | compatible today will come back at us in the form of bug reports and | help requests, I think that maybe we should not strive, at this point | in time, to be compatible with the latest feature set of matlab. I'm not proposing that we get it 100% compatible for 3.0. | While group objects make these a LITTLE bit more convenient, I fail to | see what qualitative added value they have. It is impossible to implement some fairly common plot types (stem, bar, hist, stairs) in a compatible way without them.
The high level implementation would be compatible. The low level objects would not be. Is that so bad for the time being? Are there really a lot of scripts out there which access the group objects? If you write new ones, would it make much of a difference if you use the hgroup object or just access the "group members" ? Also, even matlab provides the "old" interface: look at the bottom of: http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/creating_plots/f7-45202.html#f7-47175 which seems to suggest the there is a lot of old code lying about. So we can implement the "v6" interface which will also work with current matlab, and not be compatible with the "v7" interface for the time being Shai
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |