On 2004-08-27 14:27+0100 Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:38:42PM +0200, Arjen Markus wrote:
>> The problem with plsvect should be solved when I update the Win32
>> As for plarrows: this does not seem to follow the same pattern
>> as all other functions (i.e. a name c_plarrows which then gets
>> corrected on the way depending on the kind of compilation).
>> This should be changed in the general part of PLplot too!
>> (not just in the win32 copy of plplot.h)
> This is because plarrows was never officially adopted as part of the
> common API for plplot. It is superceded by plvect and plsvect. Perhaps
> I should not have included it in the java bindings, but these are
> generated by SWIG and Alan had already included it for the python
> bindings. At some stage I would hope to remove it.
I see no reason to keep it in either python or java. Of course this is a
backwards-incompatible change in the python and java API. Rafael, would you
have to do something special not to run afoul of Debian policy for such
python and java changes?
Previously, the compromise we worked out for the C library was to try to avoid
all backwards incompatible changes in API except for major PLplot version
changes. Like KDE 1, 2, 3, etc. So for PLplot6 we might want to have a list
of API changes (such as removal of plarrows, altogether) we intend to do to
the C library.
I don't know whether we want to be quite so careful for the python and java
front ends, though, and we might want to anticipate the future C library
What are your thoughts, Rafael?
Alan W. Irwin
Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).
Programming affiliations with the PLplot scientific plotting software
package (plplot.org), the Yorick front-end to PLplot (yplot.sf.net), the
Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net), and the Linux Brochure Project