Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Fill between cleanup #9238

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed

Conversation

dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor

Cherry-picks #9236 from v2.1.x. It also goes further and refactors fill_between(x) a bit.

fill_between and fill_betweenx were almost entirely duplicated between each other. This adds a helper function with the common functionality, and attempts to generalize between them without making the logic too convoluted.

One of the calls to interp passes data which is not guaranteed to be in
increasing order, which interp requires. Just use argsort the data, like
is done above.
fill_between and fill_betweenx were almost entirely duplicated between
each other. This adds a helper function with the common functionality,
and attempts to generalize between them without making the logic *too*
convoluted.
@dopplershift dopplershift added this to the 2.2 (next next feature release) milestone Sep 26, 2017
@QuLogic
Copy link
Member

QuLogic commented Sep 26, 2017

v2.1.x should get merged back to master; you don't really need to cherry-pick things back.

@dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok...doing this off of un-patched master would result in conflicts.

@QuLogic
Copy link
Member

QuLogic commented Dec 1, 2017

v2.1.x is merged into master; do we still need this?

@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

I don't think we need this.

@tacaswell tacaswell closed this Dec 1, 2017
@dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually, this still has the work to refactor and reduce duplication. I’ll rebase so it’s clear what’s new here.

@dopplershift dopplershift reopened this Dec 1, 2017
@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

Sorry

@efiring
Copy link
Member

efiring commented Feb 10, 2018

This looks like a nice refactor and I don't want to see it get lost, but unfortunately it needs a non-trivial rebase. Perhaps we can push on it right after the 2.2 release?

@dopplershift
Copy link
Contributor Author

I should be able to manage that after 2.2.

@anntzer
Copy link
Contributor

anntzer commented Mar 10, 2020

Superseded by #16023.

@anntzer anntzer closed this Mar 10, 2020
@story645 story645 removed this from the future releases milestone Oct 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants