[yt-dev] off_axis_projection
Cameron Hummels
chummels at astro.columbia.edu
Mon Jul 2 17:49:53 PDT 2012
Yo,
>
> Well, two points:
>
> I definitely am not suggesting removing functionality.
>
> The discussion is important so that these concerns, opinions and
> thoughts can get aired! Your viewpoint is important as you are the
> heaviest user.
>
> So I guess what I am getting here is that right now and for the
> foreseeable future we should preserve the simple wrapper code as is
> and not transition to specifying data sources. We could also perhaps
> investigate making the interpolated and non interpolated routines have
> different names, too. Perhaps off_axis_projection should *only*
> operate with interpolated dumps, and a new name be come up with for
> the non-interpolated? This would allow divergent development.
>
I'm OK with keeping the wrapper as a simple use case with very few
pass-through parameters to the camera object. However, I think that in
order for our beginner/intermediate users to be able to use more
advanced features (e.g. interpolation), we should make it very clear in
the docs how to access this. I'm thinking something like if we have a
use case for generating an off_axis_projection in the cookbook (using
the simple wrapper), we could include a link to more advanced recipes
right there. A more advanced recipe might go through the steps of
building the source, passing it to the projectioncamera, and setting a
few kwargs in the projectioncamera, then taking a snapshot. That way,
people can still easily figure out how to do these more complex
operations without parsing source. Nathan, what do you think?
So in summary, I'm OK with the switch, as long as documentation exists
for doing both things within the docs, and that the interpolation can
still be performed using a manual projectioncamera build.
Thanks for checking with us all about shifting functionality, or at the
least the method of calling functionality. I, for one, really
appreciate it!
Cameron
More information about the yt-dev
mailing list