On 03/25/2010 12:53 PM, William Stein wrote:
2010/3/25 slabbe<sla...@gmail.com>:
Hi sage-devel,
If I want to draw a 3d point of size 100 in Sage, I do :
sage: point((2,3,4), size=100)
but for a 2d point, the argument is not the same :
sage: point((2,3), pointsize=100)
In the ticket #8599 (which needs review), I propose to change
``pointsize`` for ``size`` because I think ``pointsize`` is kind of
redundant and ``size`` is not ambiguous since it is an argument of a
function called ``point``.
If anybody have an counter-argument, please say so before #8599 gets a
positive review by somebody!
-1 to this change.
The entire design of the 2d plotting in Sage was from the start meant
to be consistent
with Mathematica (just like matplotlib's 2d plotting is designed to be
similar to MATLAB's).
In Mathematica, the option is named "PointSize":
http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/PointSize.html
I'm OK with allowing both size and pointsize, but do not deprecate
pointsize. This will just
make it harder for Mathematica users to use Sage.
I've changed my deprecation patch to a patch which just removes the hint
of deprecation from the docs. I've also added the units for the size
argument.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or
reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
