On Apr 27, 5:29 am, ancienthart <joalheag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just joined sage-trac-account, requested an account and will post a new
> ticket once I have approval.
>
> As for trellis/lattice packages, this highlights what could be a big problem
> with R, as there are literally thousands of different packages, a good few
> that create plots. If we create a list of pre-approved methods, this risks
> leaving a lot out. (There's some cool kriging stuff I'd like this wrapper to
> support.)
Very true. And of course we can't assume anyone in general will have
these installed, so neither could we require them.
> I was considering (for my first code-bash this weekend) ignoring loading,
> and storing *any* non-defined method call to this object and attempting to
> run it in R. It's not secure, but would have the benefit of ensuring that
> any loaded graphic function would run successfully as a method.
> If it's necessary that we have a list of well-defined methods to the
> Rgraphic object, would we be able to escape it using an extra check=False
> argument to the __init__ method.
That is a good idea - I mean the first one, though the second one is
worth thinking about too.
> So a typical session with my object would look like:
>
> R.library("a graphics library")
> R.library("another graphics library")
>
> graph1 = Rgraphic(....................., check=False)
> graph1.boxplot(...............)
> graph1.someotherRfunction(..................)
> graph1.somethingelse(..............)
> show(graph1)
>
> Still have to sort out how to store the image though. :(
There *is* a ticket for that open :)
Let's move this discussion to the ticket you open, once you open it,
though.
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
