Hi Andre, On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Andre Wobst wrote:
> Hi Arnd, > > On 03.03.06, Arnd Baecker wrote: > > > > To be more precise: I used a subclass of ``pyx.graph.graphxy`` with > > > > self.domethods = [ self.dolayout, self.dobackground, self.dodata, > > > > self.doaxes, self.dokey, > > > > self.somefurther_routine] > > > > > > > > What is now the preferred way of changing the order or adding > > > > routines? Is overriding ``finish`` the way to go? > > > > > > Exactly. But that should not be a problem, that's exactly what > > > an object-oriented system is good for, isn't it? > > > > Absolutely - I just wanted to be sure that I don't change > > things back and forth in my code ;-). > > Well, than I'm sorry to have to tell you, that the domethods list is > gone in CVS head. The simple reason is, that it's the wrong concept. > We wanted a more flexible dependancy description. An example are > linked axes between graphs in a circular way as in the following > example: [... nice example ...] > So for you ... well, it makes a difference whether we're talking about > PyX 0.8.x and the upcoming PyX versions. I'm sorry. Still, I very much > think that the new code brings a lot of improvements. Thanks a lot for the nice example and the detailed explanation! Really, there is not need to excuse! That's what 0.X versions are for - one should not stick to a non-optimal design just because of back-wards compatibility. For my code it is only small change, so don't worry! Best, Arnd ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ PyX-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyx-user
