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: > > > 1. if the list has 3-dimensional coordinates, make a 3d line > > 2. if the list has more than 3-dimensional coordinates, silently strip > > off the first two and make a 2d line > > 3. if the list has 2-dimensional coordinates, > > > Since there is not feature-parity between the 2d and 3d backends, the > > current setup also means that options become valid or invalid depending > > on how line() interprets its coordinates. That sounds like a very bad > > thing. > > > There is a patch up at #3853 which makes line() and text() only do 2d > > stuff, leavingline3dand text3d for the 3d things. I've also fixed > > some other places that assumed the current behavior (which broke some > > doctests; hooray for doctests). Are there any comments about making > > this change?
-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 error, until there is a 4D plotting backed ;-). Is there more specific data on the problem with options not being the same between 2D and 3D? Could the options be fixed to be the same? Or to fail in a sensible way? JM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
