Timeline for Why does Dynamic for PlotRange in ListLinePlot prevent the proper range from being used?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2014 at 22:33 | comment | added | Russ Lyons | Fantastic! Thanks for doing that. | |
| May 8, 2014 at 15:41 | comment | added | William |
WRI Support confirms that the silence of ListLinePlot re PlotRange -> Dynamic is unintended and is now fixed for the next version.
|
|
| May 5, 2014 at 12:32 | comment | added | Russ Lyons | BTW, at some point when I have more time, it is possible I will decide that in the end, I will want scaled padding as you suggested. But for now I use 0. | |
| May 5, 2014 at 1:46 | comment | added | William |
@RussLyons, thanks for this feedback, very fair. Sorry I overlooked that aspect. Even after some more experimentation and lookup right now, I'm not sure why ListLinePlot doesn't complain at all about the Dynamic wrapper around its PlotRange setting. Plot certainly complains in the same setting. E.g. Manipulate[Plot[x, {x, 1, 3}, PlotRange -> Dynamic@s], {s, 1, 20}] vs. Manipulate[ListLinePlot[Range@3, PlotRange -> Dynamic@s], {s, 1, 20}]. I filed a report with WRI in case it's bad behavior. Anyway, thanks for your kind and thoughtful words.
|
|
| May 4, 2014 at 20:39 | comment | added | Russ Lyons | It was hard to decide which to accept. I didn't see either of them until this morning, so the order of posting was not a factor. I decided that having 0 padding was what I really wanted, so I accepted that. Actually, while your explanation was very good and helpful, it did not completely answer my question in the sense that it did not explain why Dynamic made a change. Without testing it, I suspect that the reason is that Dynamic prevents the range from being seen at all; having a PlotRange that is seen overrides the default padding. That's why it was so confusing to me in my original code. | |
| May 4, 2014 at 18:16 | comment | added | William | @RussLyons, no problem at all, very glad to help. I don't mean to be overly concerned with rep etc., but what was missing from this answer that made you decide not to mark it as the accepted one? The answer you've currently marked as accepted didn't mention the actual issue at all until an edit and comment about 5 hours ago, which was about 8 hours after I posted this answer. | |
| May 4, 2014 at 14:35 | comment | added | Russ Lyons | Thank you for the detailed explanation! | |
| May 4, 2014 at 4:20 | history | answered | William | CC BY-SA 3.0 |