On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote: > > > What do people think of changing line() and text() to only give 2d > graphics. Currently, the behavior for line() seems to be something > like, passing in a list of coordinates: > > 1. if the list has 3-dimensional coordinates, make a 3d line > 2. if the list has more than 3-dimensional coordinates, silently strip > off the first two and make a 2d line > 3. if the list has 2-dimensional coordinates, > > > Since there is not feature-parity between the 2d and 3d backends, the > current setup also means that options become valid or invalid depending > on how line() interprets its coordinates. That sounds like a very bad > thing. > > > There is a patch up at #3853 which makes line() and text() only do 2d > stuff, leaving line3d and text3d for the 3d things. I've also fixed > some other places that assumed the current behavior (which broke some > doctests; hooray for doctests). Are there any comments about making > this change?
I would much rather not have to use two distinct methods, point could simply dispatch to point2d or point3d depending on the size of the coordinate vector, passing *args and **kwds along. Silently stripping off the "extra" coordinates is IMHO bad though... Even better, it would be good for the parameters for 2d and 3d lines/text/etc to be made more uniform. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
