On 6/13/07, Paul A Bristow <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> 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 like:
"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 :) Jake