From: Michael D. <md...@st...> - 2007-08-02 14:31:23
|
I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options: using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof) or Math('string'). I don't think I have enough "historical perspective" to really make the call but I do have a concern about the second option that it may be confusing depending on how "Math" is imported. (It may have to be pylab.Math in some instances but not in others.) But I don't have a strong objection. Any last objections to going with the new keyword argument? Cheers, Mike Eric Firing wrote: > That leaves some variant of 2 [a keyword argument] and the Math('string') idea. I find the > latter quite pythonic; it is a very concise, readable, and general way > of attaching extra information to a string object, and it does not > require passing yet another kwarg through a sequence of function and > method calls. But if it is judged to be too out-of-character with the > rest of the mpl api, or if in practice it would cause trouble that I > don't see yet, then I am happy to let it go. I have not thought it > through carefully, and I am not attached to it. > > If a variant of 2 is chosen, one might shorten the kwarg to "math". Or > use "format='math'" or something like that. This is more flexible than > a boolean kwarg, leaving the door open to additional options for > interpretation of strings--but not quite as flexible and powerful as the > math('string') idea. > |