I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
or Math('string'). I don't think I have enough "historical perspective"
to really make the call but I do have a concern about the second option
that it may be confusing depending on how "Math" is imported. (It may
have to be pylab.Math in some instances but not in others.) But I don't
have a strong objection.
Any last objections to going with the new keyword argument?
Eric Firing wrote:
> That leaves some variant of 2 [a keyword argument] and the Math('string') idea. I find the
> latter quite pythonic; it is a very concise, readable, and general way
> of attaching extra information to a string object, and it does not
> require passing yet another kwarg through a sequence of function and
> method calls. But if it is judged to be too out-of-character with the
> rest of the mpl api, or if in practice it would cause trouble that I
> don't see yet, then I am happy to let it go. I have not thought it
> through carefully, and I am not attached to it.
> If a variant of 2 is chosen, one might shorten the kwarg to "math". Or
> use "format='math'" or something like that. This is more flexible than
> a boolean kwarg, leaving the door open to additional options for
> interpretation of strings--but not quite as flexible and powerful as the
> math('string') idea.