[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Confusing Behavior of LogPlot vs. Plot
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg24843] Re: Confusing Behavior of LogPlot vs. Plot
*From*: "Allan Hayes" <hay at haystack.demon.co.uk>
*Date*: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <8naqgs$f02@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Tony,
I give an explanation and a work-round.
Needs["Graphics`"];
f[a_, x_] := Exp[-a x^2];
x = 3.;
a = 4; LogPlot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}] // Short
ScaledPlot[{f[a, x]}, <<4>>, Options[Li<<10>>t]]
Explanatiin:
Attributes[LogPlot]
{HoldFirst}
So the x in in { x, -1, 1} is picking up the assignment x=3 and we are then
evaluating
LogPlot[f[a, x], {3., -1, 1}].
(why is LogPlot not protected?)
This evaluation of x does not happen with Plot because
Attributes[Plot]
{HoldAll, Protected}
Work-round:
We can block out x and get the graphics:
Block[{x}, a = 4; LogPlot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}]];
but, unfortunately, simply giving LogPlot the attribute HoldAll does not
work - the package needs to be be examined.
--
Allan
---------------------
Allan Hayes
Mathematica Training and Consulting
Leicester UK
www.haystack.demon.co.uk
hay at haystack.demon.co.uk
Voice: +44 (0)116 271 4198
Fax: +44 (0)870 164 0565
"AES" <siegman at stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:8naqgs$f02 at smc.vnet.net...
> If I run the following input cells with the "Table" cell commented out
> as shown, I get four valid and correct plots.
>
> Remove["Global`*"]
>
> Needs["Graphics`"]
>
> f[a_, x_] := Exp[-a x^2]
>
> a = 1; Plot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}]
>
> a = 1; LogPlot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}];
>
> (* x = 3.; Table[{a, f[x, a]}, {a, 0, 2}] // TableForm *)
>
> a = 4; Plot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}]
>
> a = 4; LogPlot[f[a, x], {x, -1, 1}]
>
> If, however, I remove the (* and *) and run the notebook including the
> "Table" input cell, both "Plot" plots are still fine, still give correct
> results, but the second "LogPlot" cell doesn't give me a plot at all, it
> gives me the list of options for something called "ScaledPlot".
>
> (With various other test circumstances, the repeated "Plot" cells always
> continue to function OK, but the repeated "LogPlot" cell gives other
> weird results, e.g, a totally incorrect plot.)
>
> If I've somehow goofed on this, I apologize -- but if this is how
> LogPlot really works, I'd say that's inexcusably bad interface design.
> If LogPlot looks, smells, and feels like Plot, and does essentially the
> same job as Plot, it should *function* just like Plot.
>
Prev by Date:
**RE: Expanding a nested structure (pattern matching?)**
Next by Date:
**RE: Expanding a nested structure (pattern matching?)**
Previous by thread:
**Confusing Behavior of LogPlot vs. Plot**
Next by thread:
**RE: Confusing Behavior of LogPlot vs. Plot**
| |