From: Christopher B. <Chr...@no...> - 2005-12-02 23:52:44
|
Ken McIvor wrote: > I haven't really given it much thought. Most people presumably use MPL > from IPython or scripts via pylab, so focusing documentation efforts on > it make sense. Not really. Most people use pylab, because that's what's well documented, not the other way around. Also, a lot of us have matlab experience, so pylab is easier that way. That being said, I don't like it much, I'd much rather have a nice, pythonic interface. I don't see any reason that a good OO API couldn't be just as effective for quick scripting as the current pylab one. I'd be happy not to have to keep track of which is the current axis, and keep having to call gca() and friends. > I think that getting a good OO API manual would really > improve things for application developers, but might be hard to justify > in the big-picture. I think application developers are a big part of the big picture, in fact. I had the idea of writing a version of the MPL manual using all OO syntax. I'd still like to do that. It would provide a useful document, and be a good test bed for what features really are miss or are more awkward to do with an OO style. Maybe one of these days I'll actually work on it! Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chr...@no... |