Now a question: is there a reason why the argument order for
> polar plotting is (theta, r)? In thinking about polar
> coordinates, I always think of them in the reverse order (r,
> theta), and I think this is the way I have always seen polar
> coordinates in math and physics books.
I can't remember a reason if there was one, and now that I think about
it your way probably makes more sense. But is it worth breaking
compatibility?
JDH
I think (theta, r) makes more sense for polar plotting. Are we plotting
r(theta) or theta(r)?
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 9:30 pm, John Hunter wrote:
> Now a question: is there a reason why the argument order for
> polar plotting is (theta, r)? In thinking about polar
> coordinates, I always think of them in the reverse order (r,
> theta), and I think this is the way I have always seen polar
> coordinates in math and physics books.I can't remember a reason if there was one, and now that I think about
it your way probably makes more sense. But is it worth breaking
compatibility?
Darren Dale wrote:
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 9:30 pm, John Hunter wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Firing <efiring@...202...> writes:
> Now a question: is there a reason why the argument order for
> polar plotting is (theta, r)? In thinking about polar
> coordinates, I always think of them in the reverse order (r,
> theta), and I think this is the way I have always seen polar
> coordinates in math and physics books.I can't remember a reason if there was one, and now that I think about
it your way probably makes more sense. But is it worth breaking
compatibility?I think (theta, r) makes more sense for polar plotting. Are we plotting r(theta) or theta(r)?
Darren, John,
That dawned on me this morning; for line and point plotting, theta is normally the independent variable, so the present order does make sense.
Eric