I'm not clear on why this code needs to be wrapped in a class. I'm sure its just my ignorance...

You mean why not start with an empty list? Because many things subtly break and it's a giant rabbit hole...

Could we at least add and__add__ attribute so it behaves a bit more like a boring list?

@jklymak We want to have a list with always at least one element. But we don't want to actually create that element, unless we really use it. The creation of unused ticks is a significant overhead.

Of course, you can implement that logic without a class, but that would mean, that you'll have conditional logic everytime you use the list, i.e. more complex code and also the checks are still run later when the list is there for sure (probably not relevant performance-wise though).

The class allows to get both, the simple API of a plain list and the lazy initialization.

We could add__add__. But as far as I can see, there's a fundamental limitation. WhileLazyDefaultTickList() + LzyDefaultTickList() andLazyDefaultTickList + [] can be made to work, I don't think it's possible for[] + LazyDefaultTickList(), because that will invokelist.__add__ over which we have no control. Please correct me, if I'm wrong here.
Therefore I'm not sure that this is a good idea. Moreover, there's no code that uses this functionality. - Except the one occurence I changed, which IMHO is better off with chained iterators anyway. However, I'm open to discussion if__add__ should be added.

Thank you all for your feedback so far. This code is intended as a working prototype to get the discussion started. There might still be room for some improvement. I will look into this further on the weekend.

If I understand it correctly,LazyDefaultTickList (which should be_LazyDefaultTickList to avoid creating a new public API) should never reach the user, because by the end of the Axes creation, we should have a real list, right? If we can ensure that, then we don't need to worry about the LazyDefaultTickList API.

I wonder if the following approach could be made to work instead: turnmajorTicks andminorTicks into custom descriptors (ie, with an appropriately defined__get__), that behave as empty lists (or whatever appropriate) as long as the owner Axis has_in_init set (per#8262), but replace themselves on the instance by a real list (populated accordingly) as soon as they are accessed while_in_init is not set anymore.

Oh, I get it. Sorry for being slow.

OTOH, does thisreally speed anything up if you actually access the axes? I don't understand how this helps real-world cases, but again, I'm sure I'm just being slow.

EDIT: OK: I checked, and it indeed speeds things up. I'm still not at all clear why. If I do

x= [1.,2.]y= [1.,2.]start=time.time()fig,axs=plt.subplots(10,10)axs=axs.flatten()foraxinaxs:ax.plot(x,y )stop=time.time()print(stop-start)

I get 2.89 s w/o this change and 0.95 with the change.

If I don't plot I get just a bit faster:
2.99s and 0.99s

Like its great this speeds things up so much, but why the heck is the initial tick instantiation so slow? The plotting just adds 0.1 s to the whole thing.

This should go against master. Tried to re-target it and there are conflicts, I'll do the 2.1.x -> master merge and try again.

Unfortunately many parts of our API that should be private are not and users have found almost all of the API surface... This will just need an api_changes note with any mitigation steps (sounds like just callinglist or using theget_* api?) that will work across recent Matplotlib versions.

That is a crazy speed up!

Thanks for working on this@timhoffm !

I think this is really clever and it is great that it speeds things up. OTOH I feel it is a complex solution to the fact that we can't find the recursion inreset_ticks in our already complex code.

successfully re-targetted to master.

I've followed the suggestion of@anntzer to make this a private class_LazyDefaultTickList.

@jklymak I've looked at__add__ and also other list-like behavior (subclassing Sequence, and MutableSequence). I would advise against it, because it can get a bit tricky. This is a private implementation detail and it's list-like enough for all current purposes. I we should need more later on, it's better to implement and test is when it's needed.

Also I've figured, thatself._lastNumMajorTicks is actually not necessary. Its only use is inget_major_ticks(). AFAICS it's only used to iterate over the just appended ticks (please recheck this). The same is true forself._lastNumMinorTicks. Both attributes are removed in the additional commit.

@QuLogic Thanks for targettingmaster, and for remembering me about my git config.

From my point of view, this is all I want to do with this pull requests. So it's ready to merge. Comments are welcome.

As@tacaswell commented above, this needs an api_changes note becausemajorTicks etc. might accessed in user code--someone might be keeping a reference, assuming it is always pointing to the same object. I think it also deserves a whats_new entry.
@QuLogic, do you think that this lack of guaranteed unique identity formajorTicks is enough of a concern to delay merging?
I think you also pointed to the seemingly unnecessarydel statements; but they could reduce memory leakage in the event that some user code is holding a reference to the lists. Should they stay, or go?

@efiring@tacaswell I've add the api_changes.

Speaking of api changes, should we makemajorTicks andminorTicks explicitly private (_)? It's not documented in the official API doc. The recommended way is using theget_*_ticks() methods.

If you don't want to break this immediately, one could at least change it internally and add a property that restores the original behavior but issues a deprecation warning.

@QuLogic, what are you thoughts on this now?

Closed in favor of#10302 and#10303.