I have run into a problem related to tight_layout when building the docs, and the root of it seems to be that plt.gca() returns an Axes, not an AxesSubplot. This seems odd, since it appears that it should be equivalent to plt.subplot(1,1,1) when there is no pre-existing axes.
Does anyone see any problem with ensuring that what plt.gca() returns in this case is an AxesSubplot instance?
Correction: now I can't reproduce what I thought I was seeing; plt.gca() is returning an AxesSubplot as it should. Maybe the problem is in the axes_grid1 toolkit. It is appearing in the last figure of the tight_layout tutorial in the docs.
Eric
···
On 2012/08/21 10:21 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
I have run into a problem related to tight_layout when building the
docs, and the root of it seems to be that plt.gca() returns an Axes, not
an AxesSubplot. This seems odd, since it appears that it should be
equivalent to plt.subplot(1,1,1) when there is no pre-existing axes.
Does anyone see any problem with ensuring that what plt.gca() returns in
this case is an AxesSubplot instance?
For axes which uses axes_locator, tight_layout works if the
axes_locator have associated subplotspec.
And, only allowing instance of SubplotBase is too strict.
The PR below addresses this issue.
And it will work again for the axes_grid1 cases.
Regards,
-JJ
···
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
Correction: now I can't reproduce what I thought I was seeing; plt.gca()
is returning an AxesSubplot as it should. Maybe the problem is in the
axes_grid1 toolkit. It is appearing in the last figure of the
tight_layout tutorial in the docs.