From graphics-request at octave dot org Tue Feb 14 01:24:49 2006
Subject: Re: Handle graphics plotting functions
From: Daniel J Sebald <daniel dot sebald at ieee dot org>
To: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
CC: Shai Ayal <shaiay at gmail dot com>, Petr Mikulik <mikulik@physics.muni.cz>,         Quentin Spencer <qspencer@ieee.org>,         Sebastien Loisel <sloisel@gmail.com>,         octave-graphics <graphics@octave.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:31:47 -0600

John W. Eaton wrote:
> I think the question is one of extensibility.  Emacs (as an example)
> would be much less useful to me if the design were such that I had to
> ask Emacs developers for new functionality.  Likewise for Octave, TeX,
> Linux (via kernel modules), anything with a plug-in interface, etc.
> Just about any software.

I recently had reason for a modified Linux kernel, what I thought was a rather reasonable and simple alteration; one that would make sense to have a boot variable.  The response from the developer was to create and submit a patch, which is fine with me and I may do some day.  The point is, I was back to making a kernel patch and rebuild.  A kernel module solution (the concept of which I like very much) just wasn't possible.  I'm used to doing this sort of thing, but the average user isn't.

>  I don't think gnuplot has the right design
> to support real extensibility through either an extension language or
> a plug-in interface.

Well, that's true.  Not sure that is a huge barrier... if gnuplot had more frequent updates and feature additions, that is.  :-)

Dan