[yt-dev] Small adjustment for the PhasePlot API

[Matthew Turk]

I think this is a good change; I think it was always the intention to
have parity between ProfilePlot and PhasePlot in this particular
regard.

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think this will make it cleaner, and 3.0 is where we break the API, so I
>> don't think it's a huge problem since it's already being changed from 2.x.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There's a minor issue with the PhasePlot class that I'd like to fix -
>>> unfortunately fixing it implies an API change.  Before I issue a pull
>>> request I'd like to ask the group what they think.
>>>
>>> Right now a PhasePlot can be created in two ways.  Both are via the
>>> PhasePlot constructor.  The first uses what we have in the docs:
>>>
>>> ph = PhasePlot(dd, 'density', 'temperature', ['cell_mass',
>>> 'cell_volume'])
>>>
>>> The second is via the profile keyword argument:
>>>
>>> profile = create_profile(dd, ['density', 'temperature'], ['cell_mass',
>>> 'cell_volume'])
>>> ph = PhasePlot(source, None, None, None, profile=profile)
>>>
>>> As you can see, the second approach is not so nice right now due to the
>>> positional arguments in the PhasePlot initializer (I'm passing None where I
>>> can pass dummy arguments -- I could pass anything in these slots, they are
>>> ignored by the PhasePlot initializer).
>>>
>>> This would make a lot more sense if PhasePlot didn't have positional
>>> arguments and you could just do PhasePlot(profile=profile).  Then again, I'd
>>> prefer not to change the API so drastically and add possible headaches for
>>> dealing with the two ways the PhasePlot initializer can be used.
>>>
>>> For ProfilePlot, we don't have a profile keyword argument.  Instead there
>>> is a classmethod named from_profiles that creates a ProfilePlot without
>>> explicitly invoking the class initializer.
>>>
>>> I'd like to add a from_profiles method to PhasePlot to help make this
>>> nicer.  I'd also like to remove the profile keyword argument, but wanted to
>>> check with the list first before opening a PR that breaks the PhasePlot API.
>>> I could also leave the profile keyword argument, but for the sake of
>>> simplicity I'd prefer if from_profiles were the only way to create a
>>> PhasePlot from a profile object.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your advice!
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Hummels
>> Postdoctoral Researcher
>> Steward Observatory
>> University of Arizona
>> http://chummels.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>