MATL CHATL

« first day (218 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2985 days later) »

Luis Mendo

20:57

@Suever I've noticed that MATL Online doesn't seem to respect the relative scale of the axes. In this answer there's an implicit axis equal, and yet the scale of the to axes is a little different

This is what I get in Octave offline

It's also strange that my axis limits are different (the input is the same, 365). Maybe related with Octave version. That's not important anyway

So, would it be easy to set the same axis scale in the graphical output from the online compiler?

Suever

21:14

@LuisMendo It may have to do with which graphics library is being used

What does graphics_toolkit give you?

Luis Mendo

qt

Suever

Yea that's likely the issue

Do you have the option to change it to fltk?

Luis Mendo

So in your offline Octave you don't get equal scales?

@Suever How do I do that?

Suever

graphics_toolkit ("fltk")

Let me try it on my desktop here

Luis Mendo

>> available_graphics_toolkits
ans =
{
  [1,1] = fltk
  [1,2] = gnuplot
  [1,3] = qt
}

^ Looks like I can

The figure does look different, but the axis scales are the same

with fltk, I mean

Suever

21:19

Hmmm intresting

I'll have to play around with it this evening

It must just have to do with the version of Octave that's running there

Because really I just listen to any call to drawnow

Suever

21:36

Ah ok so it looks like axis equal isn't called implicitly for some reason

Do you know where exactly in the MATL source that the axis equal is called when plotting like this?

Luis Mendo

@Suever Sorry!! It's my fault. I committed the implicit axis equal but it's not part of a release yet

Sorry for wasting your time

It works with the commit:

matl.suever.net/…

Stupid me!

Suever

@LuisMendo Hahaha no worries. Yea I was just digging into the MATLc and didn't see it anywhere

I love that version = commit feature

Luis Mendo

22:22

@Suever Yes, it's great! :-)

Digging into MATLc.m is painful. A single MATL statement results in a lot of lines. Efficiency of the compiled code was never my priority :-) Also, the indentation I use doesn't make the code very readable, because it is based on the original MATL statement, not on the compiled code