And while we are at it it would be nice to be able to get rid of getChildren.viewport in this example too. Its only purpose was to encapsulate access to the internals but if there were an official way to do it it would be preferable.
On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/21/06, Deepayan Sarkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks. I should have realized that. Now that I read it again with > > > your explanation it is clear. > > > > > > At the same time it would be convenient if one could specify a viewport > > > or vpPath, as well. If that were the case we could also eliminate the > > > names.* methods in this example. (These were included to encapsulate > > > access to them so that the main code does not muck around in the > > > internals.) > > > > Probably true, but that's a change that belongs in grid. I don't want > > to make unnecessary assumptions about grid functions and then be > > caught by an API change (which is one of the reasons I don't want to > > be explicit in ?print.trellis about what the 'draw.in' argument must > > be). > > > > Deepayan > > > > I agree. Maybe Paul will consider adding something to facilitate > using a name, viewport or vpPath interchangeably so the user > does not have to concern himself with such details. This seems > like a good application of OO. > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
