On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:55:58 PM UTC+2, William wrote: > > From an implementation perspective (and maybe others) it is ugly. > But from a pure usability perspective it is nice, since you only have > to remember *one* thing, the name of renderer and nothing else
Yes, good. In fact, I would like to go one step further. The output type control for "show" should be more about what the user wants to achieve, not the technical minutiae of file type that can achieve it. That is, "show" should be more about raster vs. vector graphics, lossy vs. lossless compressed, raytraced vs. rasterized, .... You shouldn't have to know the difference between animated gif and apng to use animate().show(). So in that sense the show() interface should be less detailed. Also, show() should ignore the specified format if it cannot be satisfied; If you don't have java then you'll get something else and not jmol. Saving, on the other hand, is about creating files according to particular specs that you want to use elsewhere. So there you really need to know whether you want a gif or a png. And if we don't find the tools to generate webm on your system then trying to save as webm should be a hard error, and not save an animated gif instead. -- 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.
