Re: [PyX-devel] Re: [PyX-checkins] pyx/test/experimental brace.py,NONE,1.1

[Joerg L. <jo...@us...>]

Hi Michael!

On 31.08.05, Michael Schindler wrote:
[snip]
> This has been quite a contrary discussion now, and I think it needs a
> summary. I have collected some of the main statements (hopefully)
> 
> Jörg:    - brace should be a path (highly parameterized)
>            --> put them into new path construction package
>          - not a path decorator (not appliable to arbitrary paths)
> André:   - in the first, they are path "constructors"
>            rather path creators than decorators

Actually this was exactly what I meant: there should be a separation
between something which creates a path based on certain parameters and
some other thing which does this for a given path. The latter thing is
typically based on the former. This means that there might be two
versions of nearly the same thing at different places. I think that
André fully agrees with me, here.

>          - decorators for straight lines only
> Michael: - should derive from something "alignable"

They still could do so, but as just said it's quite probable that you
can implement this quite easily on top of your current code. 

> Magnus:  - braces for arbitrary paths

This is indeed a bit different, as it probably requires something much
more general. If this were implemented, it would be a decorator. But the
current code is clearly different, so this is quite hypothetic.

> Thus, I still do not know where to put the braces. But that is no
> problem to me. At the moment, I think they would fit best in the
> connector module, but this is only because the connectors are not well
> integrated between paths, decorators and boxes, anyhow.

As I wrote somewhere in one of my mails, I think this would certainly
an option for the moment, i.e., in the present scheme.

> Maybe it is best to wait until we have found/created a proper place
> for them?

+1  :-)

        Jörg