I had not known about Boost.Parameter, and I feel that it can help my project out tremendously. However, I'm not ready to give up on the stream interface just yet. I feel that at a glance, it allows the programmer to make a few (correct) inferences about how the program works without ever looking at docs. 1) It gives the feel that something is being written 2) It implies that there is chaining This is also my own opinion, but I feel that code written using the stream operator also *looks* cleaner than a monolithic constructor call or style call to take care of all styling (including background color/border, title size/color/position, legend background/border/text size/position, main plot background/border color and size /plot colors / etc)before anything is written. I absolutely see the value of having the following syntax: my_plot << plot_range(data.begin(), data.end(), line_thickness=3, point_color=red, line_color=black); and I will certainly consider ways to incorporate this into my design. Jake On 6/13/07, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@etu.u-bordeaux1.fr> wrote:
Jake Voytko a écrit :
For those who have put time or energy into making suggestions for the SVG_Plot program, an update (with pretty pictures!) is on the wiki: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/soc/2007/VisualizationOfContainers
Feedback / use cases welcome ;).
I don't like the iostreams-like interface so much. Wouldn't boost.parameter be cleaner?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost