It is the cases that reverting to 0.02 constant legend width in 1.25.11 does not reproduce the window bug, but I have not looked into this enough to know why. Some useful background: as far as I can make out, we used to have exactly 0.02 constant for legend_rightw, and a bug was raised #2808 as legends were proportional to window size, not plot size. I do not feel that they were that bad previously, and the loss in functionality is significant and therefore am in favour of reverting this as in I do appreciate that you are trying to iron out the inconsistencies in Plots, which is great. My question: was the previous basic plotting bad enough and the improvement good enough to warrant a change that kills off legends in complex plotting. I agree that we should come up with a better solution. Let's have some more examples for/against this change. Although this complex multiplot doesn't look good, simpler 1-4 subplot figures tend to look better I feel. Though, you can't be certain if people on average don't like the current behavior.Īll in all, one example is not enough of a justification for the revert. Until anyone finds a better solution - which, given the development timeline of Plots, could take ages - and since it is clearly affecting users, I would propose, again, to revert the PR. As you said, this thread is all about opinions. If you have the will and energy, then go ahead collect some data, and present facts. It's hard to tell which one people like more without a survey and proper methodology. Well, I did this with approval, we had a Plots maintainers call with and just sad that I'm being accused here.Īnd this is your opinion too. We can then work on a draft PR to solve the scaling issue.
It's good that the change triggered the discussion, now we should wait for someone to come up with a better solution. Again, the question is: which is more important in a plot, data or decorations ? My argument is that decorations should not hide data (and others seem to share this opinion). On the GR plot, the data is unreadable, hidden by the legend box (which was the initial argument against these changes). On this particular PyPlot example, the subplots are bigger, and the data can be interpreted. Making plots look like what you get in matplotlib is not and should not be the development guideline.
Pyplot subplot julia full#
The point is that the PR you merged didn't get full approval, and should not have gone in. Until the approval is collective, you cannot force PRs like this (see ). The debate had to be done in #3855, and we should have found a satisfactory solution there. We running in circles here, and you are reverting the situation to your advantage. We also loose a lot of usable space with blank in the legend box. On the left bar-plot, the legend makes the bar look like an horizontal bar, I find it more confusing than the previous legend symbol which was more square-ish. You could say it's bad cause there is overlapping with data, but I say it's very consistent with default plotting I (and others) think that the previous, even if not perfect, was better. Or alternatively, using gridspec in order to get access to further layout options: import matplotlib.It is your sole opinion, and I disagree. You should be able to add your plot content like this: for idx, (image, time) in enumerate(zip(images, wcs_request.get_dates())):Īxes.set_title(time.date().strftime("%d %B %Y"), fontsize=10, fontweight='bold') Which should give you 6 plots on the first row and 4 on the second. # note that for some reason, add_subplot() counts from 1, hence we use i+1 hereĪxes = fig.add_subplot(nrows,ncols,i+1) Nrows = (len(images) // ncols ) + (ncols_last > 0)
Pyplot subplot julia mod#
# and (if mod > 0 !) add one to the floor operation here: # figure out how many plots will fall into the last row using modulo create two rows of images where len(images)=10: import matplotlib.pyplot as plt Well, there are many ways to generate a "nice" array of subplots but assuming that your goal is to, e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
