Sorry for taking so long to respond -- I was at SciPy and wanted to make
sure I had the time to sit down and look at this before responding.
Paul Kienzle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:31:04AM -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
>> I don't know if we ever reached consensus on how to specify math text
>> vs. regular text. I agree with Eric that it's down to two options:
>> using a new kw argument (probably format="math" to be most future-proof)
>> or Math('string'). I don't think I have enough "historical perspective"
>> to really make the call but I do have a concern about the second option
>> that it may be confusing depending on how "Math" is imported. (It may
>> have to be pylab.Math in some instances but not in others.) But I don't
>> have a strong objection.
>>
>> Any last objections to going with the new keyword argument?
>
> I'm guessing that this discussion is already closed, but I would still
> like to propose another option, just like the original: specify the
> format in the string itself by requiring a leading '$'.
>
> For example:
>
> text(x, y, r'$\sin(x)$')
>
> or for those functions not starting with math:
>
> text(x, y, r'$$phase $[0,2\pi)$')
Unfortunately, this will break if text.usetex is True. Double-dollar
signs in LaTeX delimits "display math" mode.
> This is a variant on Math(r'$\sin(x)$') which is a bit more compact.
>
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, whether or not the string contains
> tex markup is a property of the string, not a property of the function
> that use the string.
I agree with you in a semantic sense. However, does that distinction
really matter at the end of the day? Couldn't the same argument be made
for the color or font of the text? All of them have to do with how the
string is rendered. I think the oddball (for matplotlib) nature of this
syntax and the import namespace details make this at least equally as
cumbersome as the "markup" keyword. But it's subjective, and I'm
willing to change the code if there's consensus on this.
> Note that the format keyword will be required for
> all functions which have string inputs, and may cause problems if there
> are multiple string inputs to the function. legend() in particular may
> be a problem.
legend() doesn't currently accept a "markup" keyword, but obviously it
should (if we decide to stick with the "markup" keyword). (And there
are undoubtedly more holes like this to plug up). However, I don't know
if it is necessary to specify the markup of each individual legend
string, now that math can be easily interleaved with non-math. Isn't
that just adding options where none is needed?
As I see it, the only reason to have this stuff optional at all is
because it's surprising for '$'s to be delimiters. Performance is a
very minor issue. I "benchmarked" global mathtext vs. optional mathtext
on the "backend_driver.py" script (which admittedly is not a great
benchmark, but it's something), and the timing differences seem to be
below the noise threshold:
all math: 0.78s 0.67s 0.72s
optional math: 0.72s 0.75s 0.68s
So I don't see why in a legend you would want some labels to be
interpreted as having math and some without. If you need a real dollar
sign, with math on, you can always use "\$".
On a related note, there was a recent thread on matplotlib-users about
usetex being a global setting:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg04101.html
I'm concerned about consistency and/or redundancy between this and the
new markup kwarg. I don't know whether or not "usetex" being
"all-or-nothing" is desirable. But we could meet in the middle by doing
one of the following:
a) only send text to LaTeX for rendering when text.usetex=True and
markup="tex". (Which makes usetex=True behave a little more like
usetex=False).
b) add another value to markup, to render text with LaTeX. (If we
do, I would suggest changing the kwarg to "text_renderer" and having the
values be "normal", "mathtext" and "latex" or something)
c) make markup="tex" be all-or-nothing as well (that is, keep the
rcParam, but drop the kwarg.) With this flag, you're basically saying
"I know how to deal with $'s".
b) is probably the most flexible (maybe too flexible, as I can't see why
one would want to use all three types of rendering in the same plot).
a) and b) would break backward compatibility with 0.90.1, while c) would
not.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-devel mailing list
Matplotlib-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
