The property "cursor index" for intensity graphs should be an array with two elements.

[altenbach]

When we read the "cursor index" property of a cursor from an intensity graph, we only get a single number. This is insufficient and inconsistent.

Since the graph data is a 2D array, we should get an array with two elements, one for the x-index and one for the y-index. Two indices are required to translate the cursor position to the corresponding array element.

(This change would make it more consistent. Have a look at the output of e.g. "array size" and "array min&Max" when the input is a 2D array. Same thing!)

[X.]

I don't understand why the blue guys have not reacted to this one... I guess it would be a bit too disturbing to change the behavior of the cursor property for JUST that object? It probably dates back from way back then

The workaround is trivial but still...

[altenbach]

For better backwards compartibility, we could also simply rename the current "cursor index" property to "cursor index X" and add a new property named "cursor Index Y" (or similar). Most of the time we need the individual elements anyway and this suggestion would eliminate the index array operation.

Is this a better solution?

[DavidZ.]

"Cursor Index X" property to replace the current "Cursor Index" and a new "Cursor Index Y" would be great!

By the way, I would also like to have the same for the XYGraph class. Or would this be different for that class?

Altenbach, you're talking about an array with two elements for the X and Y cursor indexes. But wouldn't it be easier to have it clustered and then needing only an unbundle, similar to the properties Cursor Position>Cursor X and Cursor Position>Cursor Y?

[altenbach]

Good idea. Yes, it also would be fine for "cursor index" to be a cluster of two elements. That actually would make sense. It would also give us the freedom to either select the cluster, or one or two single element (same as we can currently do with the cursor.position property).