[yt-dev] Why does ProjectionPlot not take and pass **kwargs

[Nathan Goldbaum]

Another option might be to add something like matplotlib's setp command,
that allows you to efficiently (albeit cryptically) call a bunch of setters
all at once.

-Nathan

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Yi-Hao Chen <yihaochentw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Yi-Hao Chen <yihaochentw at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering why ProjectionPlot (and others) do not take all the
>>>> keyword arguments and pass them to PWViewerMPL and PlotWindow. For example,
>>>> currently there is no way to set buff_size at the creation of a plot. One
>>>> has to call .set_buff_size after the plot was created.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking about leaving only the arguments specific to
>>>> ProjectionPlot explicitly, and use **kwargs to pass all other arguments to
>>>> PlotWindow. But if there are reasons not to do this, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is on purpose, to reduce the API complexity. ProjectionPlot already
>>> has a huge number of keyword arguments, adding more will only make it
>>> harder to discover functionality.
>>>
>>
>> I see. That make sense.
>>
>>>
>>> I'd be much more interested in figuring out ways to make the setters
>>> more intuitive - possibly by exposing plot attributes as descriptors?
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea how to implement the descriptors...
>>
>
> Here's a nice article on descriptors that I've often referred to in the
> past:
>
> http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/urls/gist.github.com/
> ChrisBeaumont/5758381/raw/descriptor_writeup.ipynb
>
> The idea would be to expose the internal state for the plot objects via
> descriptors. This would make it possible to do, e.g.:
>
>     plot = yt.ProjectionPlot(ds, 2, 'density')
>
>     # both of these should work and be handled by the descriptor
>     plot.buff_size = (800, 1600)
>     plot.buff_size = np.array(800, 1600)
>
>     print(plot.buff_size)
>     plot.save()
>
> There are a number of plot attributes (some of them currently private)
> that we could handle (hopefully) more intuitively using this sort of API.
> The reason why I think it needs to happen (if it should happen) as part of
> a bigger refactoring is that we shouldn't leave the API partially converted
> to look like this, as that will be even more awkward to use.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Yi-Hao
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20161221/41c1890f/attachment.htm>