Re: [matplotlib-devel] Patch suggestion

[Nicholas Y. <su...@su...>]

On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 10:28 -0500, John Hunter wrote:
> >>>>> "Nicholas" == Nicholas Young <su...@su...> writes:
> I have mixed feelings about making this a separate class / separate
> function.  The current axes imshow / image.AxesImage is already
> overloaded (handling MxN, MxNx3, MxNx3, _image.Image and PIL images.
> What is the logic of making a special functions/classes case for MxNx4
> with directshow.  On the one hand, I appreciate the desire to simplify
> the code by pulling it into separate classes and functions.  On the
> other hand, I wonder if it will confuse users to have one separate
> function for UInt8 images and another for everything else.  Another
> worry I have about the separate DirectImage class is that it copies
> much of the image resize functionality from AxesImage, including the
> broken handling of aspect='preserve'.  This too argues for keeping as
> much functionality in AxesImage as possible, testing for A.typecode()
> where appropriate.  What do you think?

I'm happy for it be be called from imshow but I can't think of a syntax
to do so which isn't going to be confusing.  The existing variations to
imshow are all based upon the type of the input image and this won't
work here - the case of someone who wants to plot a MxNx4 UInt8 array
and have the values it contains normalised being the problem.  Another
keyword parameter could be added which only takes effect in this case; I
thought this likely to confuse but if you prefer it I'm happy.

Nick