Re: Outerposition Patch

[Konstantinos Poulios]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, bpabbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bpabbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Konstantinos Poulios <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:37 AM, logari81 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 21:09 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:32 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 19:37 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2011, at 12:05 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 20:00 +0100, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM, David Bateman <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le 10 févr. 2011 à 00:25, logari81 <address@hidden> a
>>>>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for this information.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that the previously attached patch causes problems only
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> legends. However, in order to treat legends correctly I need to
>>>>>>>>>>> understand their logic. How do legends exploit the outerposition
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> position properties? Is anyone familiar with legend.m to give me
>>>>>>>>>>> a short
>>>>>>>>>>> introduction?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't try to understand the logic of legend's use of the
>>>>>>>>>> position and outerposition properties. It's just a hack that worked 
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> existing behavior. If your patch doesn't work well with legend it is
>>>>>>>>>> probably legend that needs to be fixed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The attached patch replaces the previous one and implements the
>>>>>>>>> calculation of both position and outerposition depending on the
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> of activepositionproperty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not very well tested yet, so there will probably be some
>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>> e.g. legends will not work, but it brings a feature that maybe is
>>>>>>>>> awesome. It is something that Matlab cannot do and maybe you like
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> See the following video:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://ubuntuone.com/p/cYM/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The position property is calculated dynamically while you rotate
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> view, so that all labels fit in outerposition. I think it works
>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>> well in order to keep it. What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As this operation involves certain computational overhead, it would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> interesting to get some tests on older machines. Unfortunately all
>>>>>>>>> pc's that I have access to, are too fast.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch also fixes http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?31610 for the
>>>>>>>>> fltk toolkit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, if we adopt the attached patch we have to adapt legend.m
>>>>>>>>> also.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kostas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After some more testing and fixes I think the patch is quite mature
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the form you find in the attachment. I think it could be checked in.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have just checked in this changeset along with some further
>>>>>>> fixes/improvements. Now, I would like to provide some additional
>>>>>>> information and ask for some help with regard to the open issues that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> had listed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are still some general issues with fltk that I will try to sum
>>>>>>>> up:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. In some demo plots axes labels seem to be too close to the axes
>>>>>>>> (e.g. demo legend 9). Probably in some of the previous changes there
>>>>>>>> is something that I have overseen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually after testing older revisions of octave I realized that the
>>>>>>> problem is not new. The reason that I hadn't noticed it before is
>>>>>>> because the problem appears only in the print output and not in the
>>>>>>> plot
>>>>>>> window. It seems that gl-render and gl2ps position strings
>>>>>>> differently
>>>>>>> considering either the bottom line or the baseline of the string
>>>>>>> respectively. It is not difficult to fix, we just have to decide
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> of gl-render and gl2ps are we going to fix in order to make both
>>>>>>> consistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Legends for barplots don't show colors (this is an old problem).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Some small y axes interference for plotyy (also not new).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. Now there is no labels-titles interference in demo subplot 1, so
>>>>>>>> there is no need for extra space between the subplots, we can reduce
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> bit the padding (someone which is familiar with subplot.m I
>>>>>>>> suppose).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Waiting for someone familiar with subplot.m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I"ve just pushed a changeset that improves the layout of the subplots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/7b67bbf9dbbb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also attaching a test script that runs under Octave and Matlab.
>>>>>> Results for both are attached.
>>>>>
>>>>> This script is cool, I was thinking of doing something like that but I
>>>>> didn't realize that it can be done so easily.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The test script places dashed blue lines around the position of each
>>>>>> axis, and dashed red around the outerposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean blue lines around the original axes position before adding
>>>>> labels and titles. The version of the script that I have attached in
>>>>> this email visualizes the updated positions which correctly coincide
>>>>> with the axes.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I see your point. I'll have to do some experimenting with the
>>>> corrected version.
>>>>
>>>>>> When subplot (3,3,1:3) is used to replace the first row of subplots, a
>>>>>> green dashed box is used to encompass the new position, and a dashed 
>>>>>> magenta
>>>>>> for the outerposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problems I see are ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) The activeposition property is still "outerposition".
>>>>>
>>>>> why is this a problem? Maybe we prefer this, maybe not, see my comment
>>>>> on (2). ML sets it to "position" but we do not have necessarily to do
>>>>> the same.
>>>>
>>>> We may decide to deviate from compatibility with Matlab, but before
>>>> doing so we should discuss it on the list. The list has already discussed
>>>> and agreed to Matlab compatibility (before my time here), it would be
>>>> improper to deviate from that agreed upon approach without discussion 
>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>> Can we abide by Matlab's example for now and discuss changes later. If
>>>> nothing else, that would make it easier (for me) to review the state of
>>>> graphics for Octave (via dump_demos and such).
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) The width of subplot (3,3,1:3) has been improperly modified on the
>>>>>> c++ side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually this is not really "improperly". It is doing what it was
>>>>> expected to do. What we programmed in c++ is a minimum left margin of
>>>>> 13% of outerposition(3). For the upper subplot the total width is 3
>>>>> times the width of the other subplots so the minimum left margin is
>>>>> also
>>>>> 3 times higher. It is ugly.
>>>>> This would be a reason for switching to
>>>>> activepositionproperty=position.
>>>>> This way, we wouldn't let sync_position do its job but we would do it
>>>>> manually in the frontend. Now we are able to, before we couldn't
>>>>> because
>>>>> we couldn't get any tightinset values.
>>>>
>>>> If consistent with Matlab, the subplot(3,3,1:3) would produce an axes
>>>> with a position property that encompasses the original 3 axes (Matlab
>>>> documents this, but I've noticed some minor "bugs" on their part).
>>>>
>>>> For now, can the position/outerposition synchronization be implemented
>>>> in the manner that is consistent with Matlab's documentation?
>>>>
>>>> Meaning that when outerposition is active …
>>>>
>>>> I) position(1) is adjusted to the right (never to the left), to ensure
>>>> no object extends to the left of outerposition(1).
>>>>
>>> Right now, no objects should extend left of outerposition(1). If there
>>> is a test case not respecting this rule, please let me know (only
>>> exception is if you make the plot window tiny).
>>
>> I don't see any cases of that. What I do see is that you're requiring a
>> minimum of space between the outerposition and position boxes. So you're
>> adding features, correct?
>>
>>>> II) position(2) is adjusted upward (never downward), to ensure no object
>>>> extends below the outerposition(2)
>>>>
>>>
>>> likewise
>>
>> Your approach is not consistent with the "never downward" part, Correct?
>>
>>>> III) position(3) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>>>> extends beyond the outerposition(1)+outerposition(3).
>>>>
>>>
>>> likewise
>>
>> Same.
>>
>>>> IV) position(4) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>>>> extends beyond the outerposition(2)+outerposition(4).
>>>>
>>>
>>> likewise
>>
>> Same again.
>>
>>>> When the position property is active the relationship is reversed. Its
>>>> been a couple of years since I looked that this in detail. Is my
>>>> understanding of how Matlab works consistent with yours?
>>>>
>>>>>> 3) The positions have been shifted to the left relative to what was
>>>>>> specified by subplot.m. Originally, their left edges were very close to 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> left edge of the outerpositon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "left edges" I don't get this point.
>>>>
>>>> Opps ... not "left", but "right"!
>>>>
>>>> My observation was that the right edge of the "position" has been
>>>> shifted to the left even though no object impinged upon the right edge of
>>>> the outerposition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is 9.5%. The problem is that we consider these minimum margins 13%
>>> to the left, 9.5% to the right, 11% to the bottom, 7.5 %to the top. This
>>> is compatible with ML for normal plots, but for subplots ML reduces this
>>> limits. Actually subplot in ML is quite a hack. We have different
>>> possibilities of achieving the same behavior. I make a proposal at the
>>> end.
>>
>> Actually Matlab does not have "minimum margins". Those margins are set by
>> the "defaultaxisposition" and "defaultaxisouterposition" properties (present
>> in the root, figure and axes objects). Thus, they are controlled on by
>> m-file side by the user.  So I think the current synchronization isn't
>> compatible with Matlab, even for normal plots.
>>
>>>>>> 4) The xticklabels and yticklabels should be tigher to the axes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is adjustable I think. Maybe it makes sense to calculate the
>>>>> distance of ticklabels from axes as percentage of axes sizes.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't a documented by MathWorks. However, I did some experimenting
>>>> and found that ...
>>>>
>>>> a) xlabel baseline is (2*fontsize + 7) points below the axis position
>>>>
>>>> b) x-axis ticklabels are (fontsize + 1.5) points below the axis position
>>>>
>>>
>>> the bigger the font, the higher the distance from the axis
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> c)  the right extent of the y-axis ticklabels is (20/fontsize + 1)
>>>> points to the left of the axis position.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so, the bigger the font, the closer to the axis? Interesting.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the extent property is designed for type-settting, so
>> there is some white space included. Thus, the visual result does not give
>> the impression the characters are closer to the axis box. Matlab and
>> Octave's extents aren't yet consistent, so there is good reason not to
>> blindly copy this feature. However, I do think the spacing should rely upon
>> the font and not the axis.
>>
>>> Do you believe these 3 approximations a,b and c are fixed or they could
>>> change proportionally to the axes width/height.
>>
>> No they do not. This is easily seen my resized the figure with the mouse.
>>
>>>> As this isn't documented by MathWorks, they could change it. So there is
>>>> no compelling reason to copy the specifics.
>>>>
>>>> However, if there are multiple axes in the same figure, I think the
>>>> spacing between axes, ticklabels, and labels  should be consistent 
>>>> (assuming
>>>> the fontsize is consistent). Does that make sense? Other thoughts /
>>>> concerns?
>>>>
>>>> Ben
>>>
>>> SUGGESTION:
>>>
>>> 1st step: Add a new property (hidden?) to the axes object:
>>> minmargins = [l b rt]
>>> with default value derived from defaultaxesposition:
>>> l=defaultaxesposition(0)
>>> b=defaultaxesposition(1)
>>> r=1-defaultaxesposition(0)-defaultaxesposition(2)
>>> t=1-defaultaxesposition(1)-defaultaxesposition(3)
>>
>> I rather not see this done. The margins are currently defined by the user
>> on the m-file side by changing the position/outerposition of the axes. This
>> just looks more complicated to me with no added capability.
>>
>>> 2nd step: Modify sync_positions so that it takes into account minmargins
>>> instead of defaultaxesposition. This would mean no change for all other
>>> plots, but for subplots it gives as the possibility to reduce the
>>> minimum margins from the frontend (e.g. reduce the ugly 9.5% to the
>>> right).
>>
>> I'd prefer that the synchronization limit itself to the compatible
>> behavior. For activepositionproperty = "outerposition"
>>
>> I) position(1) is adjusted to the right (never to the left), to ensure no
>> object extends to the left of outerposition(1).
>>
>> II) position(2) is adjusted upward (never downward), to ensure no object
>> extends below the outerposition(2).
>>
>> III) position(3) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object
>> extends beyond the outerposition(1)+outerposition(3).
>>
>> IV) position(4) is decreased (never increased) to ensure no object extends
>> beyond the outerposition(2)+outerposition(4).
>>
>> In short the position property never expands, but retracts to keep itself
>> and its children inside the outerposition.
>>
>> Conversely, when the activepositionproperty == "position", the
>> outerposition never contracts, but expands so as to encompass the axis and
>> its children.
>>
>> One of the difficulties I'm having with subplot is that the synchonization
>> second guesses the specified position. In addition, the current solution
>> will be difficult to document.
>>
>>> 3rd step: Optimize subplot.m making use of the new property minmargins
>>>
>>> Only by setting minmargins to zero would eliminate most problems that we
>>> observe now with subplot. More sophisticated use of minmargins would
>>> even allow us to synchronize the insets in rows and columns of the
>>> subplot grid (AFAIK is what ML does, can you confirm this?).
>>>
>>> What do you think? Should I add the a property minmargins or something
>>> similar?
>>
>>
>> Ok, Please propose a changeset with the default for  minmargins set to
>> zero so that we'll have a compatible solution.
>>
>> Ben
>>
>
> Hmm, I have a suggestion. Since I thought that the implementation of
> sync_position for single plots (not subplots) is compatible with ML,
> and you are saying that it isn't, this should be the first issue to
> fix. Could you provide me with an example of a single plot that
> demonstrates the difference between ML and Octave?
>
> As soon as I fix this we can come back to subplot again and continue
> our discussion.
>
> BR
>
> Kostas
>
> First example is for activeposition == "position"
> figure (1)
> clf
> set (gca, 'position', [0 0 1 1], 'activepositionproperty', 'outerposition')
> plot (0:1,0:1)
> axis ([0 1 0 1])
> outerposition = get (gca, 'outerposition')
> I've attached the result from Matlab.  The outerposition from Matlab is
> outerposition =   -0.1677   -0.1350    1.2903    1.2270
> Octave's result does not grow the outerposition.
> outerposition =   0   0   1   1

ouuuuups!!! I introduced this bug in 98772e4e8a2a. It used to work
correctly before. I have just pushed the fix, so it should be ok
again.

> If this example so that activeposition == "outerposition" ...
> figure (1)
> clf
> set (gca, 'position', [0 0 1 1], 'activepositionproperty', 'outerposition')
> set (gca, 'outerposition', [0 0 1 1])
> plot (0:1,0:1)
> axis ([0 1 0 1])
> … then I see that the default axis position is restored. This does behave in
> the manner you're suggesting, but it is not described by the documentation.
> http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/creating_plots/f1-32495.html
> This behavior is new to me (wasn't there when I examined this a few years
> back). So it appears I owe you an apology for the back-n-forth.
> I did a quick google, and found that someone else named "Ben" had figured
> out what is happening.
> http://undocumentedmatlab.com/blog/tag/outerposition/
> Rather than minmargins, may I suggest you use "looseinset" as Matlab does?
> For the subplots, the looseinset may be set to some reasonable value by the
> subplot.m function.
> Ben
>
>
> Same article, but this time a direct link
> http://undocumentedmatlab.com/blog/axes-looseinset-property/
> Ben

I am working on looseinset now. It shouldn't take long to implement.

BR

Kostas