On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:44, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Thanks. The subslicing optimization added in 0.99 was truncating the polar
> path. Subslicing has been made more "cautious" now and will only be applied
> when the axes are rectilinear and non-logarithmic.
>
> Interestingly, there was al
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 17:16, John Hunter wrote:
> I filed a report at
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=browse&group_id=80706&atid=560720.
Ok, next time I'll file a bug on SF issue tracker instead of writing here.
Cheers,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http
Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Thanks. The subslicing optimization added in 0.99 was truncating the
> polar path. Subslicing has been made more "cautious" now and will only
> be applied when the axes are rectilinear and non-logarithmic.
>
> Interestingly, there was already a test in the test frame
Thanks. The subslicing optimization added in 0.99 was truncating the
polar path. Subslicing has been made more "cautious" now and will only
be applied when the axes are rectilinear and non-logarithmic.
Interestingly, there was already a test in the test framework for this
bug, but the baselin
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hi all,
> with the simple code here below
>
> $ ipython -pylab
>
> In [1]: import numpy as np
>
> In [2]: theta = np.arange(0., 2., 1./180.)*np.pi
>
> In [3]: plt.polar(3*theta, theta/5)
>
> I obtain the attached images with 0.98.5.3 and 0.99.{
