Re: Outerposition Patch

[Ben Abbott]

On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Ben Abbott wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2011, at 2:21 AM, logari81 wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 19:06 -0500, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:35 PM, logari81 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 22:40 +0100, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>> 
>>>>> in the attached changeset you can find a first implementation of
>>>>> looseinset. The sync_position function relies now on looseinset instead
>>>>> of default_axes_position.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Known limitations: looseinset remains always in normalized units (since
>>>>> it is a hidden property I see no need to support other kinds of units)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please test this patch and send me any comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BR
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kostas
>>>>> <looseinset-1a.changeset>
>>>> 
>>>> For consistency, how difficult is it to implement the units conversion? 
>>>> ... or maybe a more proper question is; Is there a reason that units 
>>>> conversion is prohibitive?
>>> 
>>> the units conversion itself is not a problem, but how different units
>>> for looseinset will be interpreted in sync_positions is not very
>>> straightforward. My main concern however is that by adding further
>>> checks and conversions to sync_positions it becomes heavier and heavier.
>>> Since looseinset is not supposed to be accessed by users maybe it makes
>>> sense to support only normalized units. This should be sufficient for
>>> achieving a decent subplot behavior. What do you think?
>> 
>> I'd thought the axes properties were always stored normalized, and that 
>> conversion only occurred when the user did a set/get from the m-file side. 
>> Meaning that accessing the axes properties on the c++ side would return 
>> values in the default units, and that units conversion had to be done 
>> explicitly. 
>> 
>> How does the conversion work on the c++ side? Can you not directly access 
>> the properties without triggering a conversion? ... if conversion always 
>> happens, then why isn't setting units="normalized" sufficient to fix the 
>> conversion in all cases (i.e. position, outerposition, tightinset, 
>> looseinset)? In either event, if units=="normalized" no conversion needs to 
>> be done, so I'm confused as why this is a problem. Am I making sense?
>> 
>> Ben
> 
> I studied the code over the last few days. I now understand why leaving 
> looseinset in normalized units is preferred.
> 
> I think understand your point regarding the subplot behavior is correct as 
> well. For subplot the units won't matter since the looseinset would be set to 
> [0 0 0 0], is correct?
> 
> Please push the change. When that is done, I'll push a change for subplots 
> and run dump_demo to produce an updated page. 
> 
> Ben

I've pushed a change for subplot and run dump_demos

                http://homepage.mac.com/bpabbott/12439/compare_plots.html

I didn't look closely at the results. I did notice a problem with the 20th 
legend demo.

Ben