Re: [Matplotlib-users] Evolution of the interface

[Jerzy K. <jer...@un...>]

Christophe BAL:
> I really appreciate the work done by matplotlib but I really think that
> the interface must evolve. Here is a small example.
>
> *  object.set_something(...)*
> *object.get_something()*
>
> It could be easier to use a jQuery like style as in the following lines.
>
> *object(...)*
> *object()*
>
> This will considerably simplify things.
>
>
> Here is a more realistic example.
>
> *fig = pylab.figure()*
> *ax  = fig.add_subplot(1,1,1)*
> *
> *
> *ax.set_xlabel(*"xLabel"*)*
> *ax.set_ylabel(*"yLabel"*)*
>
> The a jQuery like style would be as in the following lines.
>
> *fig = pylab.figure()*
> *ax  = fig.add_subplot(1,1,1)*
> *
> *
> *  ax(xlabel = *"xLabel"*, ylabel = *"yLabel"*)*
> *
> *
> I don't know enough matplotlib to propose other examples
> but I really think that *there is a lot **of things that could make *
> *matplotlib much more Pythonicly easy to use.*
I am afraid I disagree  a little bit. The call:  object(...) [if object 
is an instance, not a class, otherwise ths would be a constructor] -
- means object.call(...).

Now, in principle one can throw inside a generic "call" plenty of 
attribute changes,  but just imagine the parsing of all the possible 
argument combination. And, BTW, what would it mean: xxx= ax()  ? In 
general case this is not practical.
The methods in Python called.through.the.dot.notation are there to stay, 
I think.

Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Caen, France.