From: Jake Voytko (jakevoytko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-13 13:27:57
On 6/13/07, Paul A Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Looking rather good already :-))
> Though I suspect that people will have a clearer idea of the implications
> of the parameters v. stream debate when we have a slightly
> fuller example with axes ticks and labels and title etc. Perhaps when you
> have a bit more fleshed out, you can repost with a title
> "Progress of Boost.SVG_Plot - request for views on how to present the
> graph options."
> Personally, I still don't like the use of << at all.
> The set functions feel much more intuitive to me, and chaining provides a
> shortcut if you want, but you don't have to use it. Once
> you have an example, it's pretty obvious how to use it. It avoids the
> need to chose short names for my_plot to cut down repetition.
The stream vs. member function discussion seems to be quite a dividing
point! As Joaquín points out (and I had at one point envisioned, and
subsequently forgot) , there are clear advantages as far as
extensibility/readability goes, and again, I don't want to give it up quite
yet if it helps make the program more extensible (with an easy-to-read
syntax). However, a lot of people just don't seem comfortable with the idea
of the streams.
Could I just provide both? There's no obvious roadblock as far as
implementation goes. The only question that remains in my mind is, "is that
good programming practice?"
Does "output" feels better than "write"? No - perhaps write is OK?
> my_plot.output("my_image.svg") also feels right to me.
I think that's just a preference thing, and I personally like "write" better
than "output". If this is a sticking point with a lot of people, I'll do the
find replace :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk