On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:58:16 PM UTC+2, martin@gmx.net wrote:
>
> I don't mind additional arguments with a higher level of abstraction. But
> if you want "show" as a preview to "save" (as in methods 3 and 4), then
> "show" should support all the options "save" does.
>
Typically yo
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:21:22 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> The output type control for "show" should be more about what the user
> wants to achieve, not the technical minutiae of file type that can achieve
> it. That is, "show" should be more about raster vs. vector graphics, lossy
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:55:58 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>
> From an implementation perspective (and maybe others) it is ugly.
> But from a pure usability perspective it is nice, since you only have
> to remember *one* thing, the name of renderer and nothing else
Yes, good. In fact, I wou
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> I'm happy to expose all kinds of options to show() and save() with the
> exception that:
> * save requires a filename, and derives the output type from the filename
> * show does not accept a filename, but has another way to control output
>
