So, the big question is: is it OK, or at least potentially OK, to change the pylab API for contour and contourf so that they return a single object instead of a tuple?
This breaks the matlab analogy.
I do not care about that myself,
but people coming from matlab might.
Maybe the right way to go is to provide an extended contourgroup object http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/ref/contourgroupproperties.html
and treat contour and contourf as convenience functions that continue to work as they do.fwiw,
Alan Isaac
Alan,
Actually, it shouldn't hurt people coming from matlab, for two reasons:
1) the present mpl contour and contourf don't return the same things that the matlab versions do, anyway;
2) Mathworks has already broken their users' matlab code by changing the contour/contourf return values between version 6 and version 7.
The contourgroup is new in version 7. What I have in mind is similar to it--although until your message, I had completely forgotten that this is the thing that broke all my matlab contouring in version 7. So, the proposed change will make mpl contour less like matlab version 6 contour and more like version 7; but this is coincidental, not deliberate.
Eric
ยทยทยท
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, Eric Firing apparently wrote: