# Scalar Roulette 4

Posted by **Loren Shure**,

A while ago, Steve posted an article entitled Functional Design Clunkers on his blog. Well, I have a confession to make too. Have you ever been bitten by the ambiguity in the `contour` function?

### Contents

### Two Syntaxes That Can Clash

Here are the two syntaxes that can class for `contour`:

`contour(Z,n)``contour(Z,v)`

From the documentation:

`contour(Z,v)` draws a contour plot of matrix `Z` with contour lines at the data values specified in the monotonically increasing vector `v`. The number of contour levels is equal to `length(v)`. To draw a single contour of level `i`, use `contour(Z,[i i])`.

Time for the confession. I thought at the time we were designing `contour` that asking for a single contour would be rare enough to warrant having the "convenient" syntaxes that could clash. And
I even know the work-around for programmers. If they wanted to specify the contour levels, they simply needed some code like
this:

if length(mycontours) == 1 mycontours(2) = mycontours; end % now call the contour function

So, why don't I like this now? The code is harder to read, the intent is harder to discern, and it just feels clunky.

### Possible Solutions

I can think of a bunch of possible solutions, were we to design the `contour` function today. These include (but certainly aren't limited to):

- two functions, 1 for number of contours, 2 for values of contours
- control number vs. level behavior with param/value pairs or some similar device
- have one of the inputs (perhaps scalar level number) be in a cell array or some other class that differs from the class for the level values input

### Have You Been Bitten?

Has the ambiguity in `contour` bitten you? Or one in some other MATLAB functionality? What solution do you prefer? Let me know here.

Get
the MATLAB code

Published with MATLAB® 7.10

**Category:**- Common Errors

## 4 CommentsOldest to Newest

**1**of 4

I prefer the option no.2.

Something like:

contour(Z,’number’,8);

contour(Z,’levels’,[-4 0 4]);

This would have the advantage to remain compatible with the present syntax, if the 2nd input argument is not a string.

**2**of 4

One inconsistency that has tripped me up in the past is the row-wise assignments of the SUBPLOT function. For example, given the command:

subplot(2,2,2)

which, according to the documentation, breaks the the Figure window into an 2-by-2 matrix of axes and selects the 2nd one, we should expect the current axes to match any other 2nd element of any other MATLAB matrix.

A = zeros(2,2); % A 2-by-2 matrix

A(2) = 5; % Change the second element.

These commands put a five in the lower left element, yet the second axes addressed by the above subplot corresponds to the third element in A (the upper right), not the second.

Yes it is documented that the axes are counted row-wise, but why this sudden change from MATLAB column-dominated addressing?

**3**of 4

Matt-

Sudden is a funny word in this context – subplot was this way from before I ever used MATLAB so I don’t know why it was designed row-wise. But I can definitely see how the inconsistency causes problems!

–Loren

**4**of 4

The second option using param/value pairs seems like the best of those three.

Another option would be that the second argument is always the number of contours and the third argument is always a vector of contour values. As with other functions (like MAX) you could just leave the second input as empty if it isn’t necessary:

contour(Z,n); % Plots n contours contour(Z,[],0); % Plots 1 contour at 0 contour(Z,[],v); % Plots the contours in vector v

## Recent Comments