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

[Yi-Hao Chen]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/ChrisBeaumo
>> nt/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')
>>
>
It seems that yt will already create an image with default buff_size =
(800,800) here.  It will of course redraw the image again later when we set
the attributes and save the plot, but wouldn't it be redundant to create
the first image?

>
>>
>     # 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.
>>
>
I agree there should be a better way to access the plot attributes.

>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161221/426c03a2/attachment.html>