> -1
>
> I also don't like this change. It seems pretty unambiguous what I
> want to do if I pass line() a list with three dimensional
> coordinates. I want a 3D line. I don't really understand the
> rationale for this change.
>
> 1. and 3. above seem like correct behavior. 2. should throw an
On Aug 21, 6:54 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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:
>
>
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
I would prefer that commands like point, line, and text work in 2D and
3D, but I don't have very strong feelings about it.
-M. Hampton
On Aug 21, 4:54 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do people think of changing line() and text() to only give 2d
> graphics. Currently, the behav
