I'm happy to expose all kinds of options to show() and save() with the exception that: * save requires a filename, and derives the output type from the filename * show does not accept a filename, but has another way to control output type if there is more than one (the viewer=... argument in 3d-plots) The bug in #18176 was precisely that save did not support some options that show did. The only difference in our approaches to fix it was that I didn't have the time to add extra options to save.
PS: I'm not terribly happy with using viewer=... in 2d/(2+1)d plots, a better keyword should be found IMHO. Though thats not really on topic. On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5:54:22 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi! > > This is a quick poll, triggered by comment 50 of ticket 7298 > <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/7298#comment:50> and also comment 17 of > ticket 18176 <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18176#comment:17>. How > would you like to create and save an animation using Sage. Options (perhaps > presented in a slightly biased way): > > 1. Create the animation object, then call the "save" method without any > extra arguments, hope to see a download link in the browser or a file > system path in the console, and hope the file looks OK using default > settings. > 2. Start as above, then open the file to view it, and begin adding or > changing arguments to "save" till it looks OK. Which means re-downloading > from browser, and / or re-loading in your viewer app if it doesn't do so > automatically. > 3. Use "show" instead of "save" for a preview, tweak arguments to that > till I'm satisfied, then change the "show" to a "save". > 4. Use "show", tweak till satisfied, then right-click in browser to save, > or use "Save (copy) as..." in viewer application. > 5. … (feel free to add further options you'd prefer over those presented > here.) > > The reason I'm asking this is because I feel that most people would prefer > to follow approach 3 and 4. Which means everything you can do with "save" > should be possible with "show" as well, with the possible exception of the > target file name. In the comments pointed out above, Volker Braun was of a > different opinion, arguing that "show" should simply show stuff, without > too much "confusing" flexibility, while all the power to tweak stuff should > only be available for "save". His rationale being the name of the method: > if you want to save things at the end of the day, you should be calling > "save" not "show". > > I'd like to hear your input about which method you'd prefer. > > I know I'm all for 4. and have been using that very often. If it's just > me, I'll accept that, but somehow I feel that this usage scenario is so > obvious that I'd be very surprised to be the only one employing it. > Particularly since I've asked some colleagues and they's use the same > approach if given these alternatives. @Volker, if you think I > misrepresented some of the options, it happened without ill intentions. > Please feel free to clarify. > > Greetings, > Martin > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
