Re: The inconcsisteny of matlab contourgroups

[David Bateman]

Ben Abbott wrote:
> I'm in favor of 2) as well.
>
> Of course, the choice should be well documented.

I'll try, though had less time to look at this over the last few days 
than hoped.

> How likely is it that an m-file would rely upon such behavior?

Anything that tries to set the properties of a set of handles that is 
returned by "contour3", "meshc" or "surfc" might be affected by this, 
but as the function set can accept a single handle or a set of handles 
code that is written well shouldn't have an issue with this 
incompatibility.

D.

--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)