Re: [Matplotlib-users] Exact semantics of ion()??

[Benjamin R. <ben...@ou...>]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Eric Firing <ef...@ha...> wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Eric Firing<ef...@ha...>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/efiring/matplotlib/blob/faq_show_draw/doc/faq/usage_faq.rst
>>>
>>> Eric, Ben,
>>>
>>> See if the section "What is interactive mode" makes sense to you.  I have just added it to a feature branch (which includes some other faq madifications, mainly moving the backend section from installation to usage), but have not yet generated a pull request.  It doesn't go into every detail, or into the underlying machinery.  It is intended to provide just enough understanding to clear up user-level confusion about interactive mode, show, and draw, and let most relatively new users get on with their work.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> I see where you are going with this, and this is valuable information
>> to include in the docs. However, the interactive mode and backend info
>> doesn't seem to fit properly with everything else on the page.  I am
>
> I don't see why not.  A FAQ is a place for answers to questions, and
> this is the usage section of the FAQ, so I don't see any inherent reason
> why information about backends and interactive mode, both of which
> involve mpl usage, can't go there.  There may be better places, to which
> the FAQ could refer, but I think the FAQ is better than nothing.  I
> moved the backend piece from the installation part of the FAQ, where it
> *really* didn't belong.  (And the remaining installation part is also an
> out-of-date worm jar.)
>
>> not sure where to put them yet, but I will see if I can take a deeper
>> look tomorrow.  I also already noticed some other wording issues in
>> some other parts of that page.
>>
>> Ben Root
>
> What you will also find is that the section users/shell.rst, which threw
> Eric L for a loop in the first place, badly needs updating, and overlaps
> with what I was trying to do in the FAQ.  As Eric also points out, a
> section with more detail would probably be good somewhere; I was
> thinking of putting that in the FAQ also, at least as a first step.
>
> My github branch now includes a changeset with augmented docstrings for
> show and draw.
>
> Eric
>

I think my main issue is that the FAQ is not really an FAQ anymore.
There are only a few remaining questions as section headers, and some
of the "answers" are much too involved.  I would think we would be
best served by a real FAQ and then separate topic-based docs that the
answers can link to (as well as having them accessible from the main
toc).

Ben Root