#13834: Clean up linestyle arguments throughout Sage
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
       Reporter:  ppurka        |         Owner:  jason, was   
           Type:  enhancement   |        Status:  needs_review 
       Priority:  major         |     Milestone:  sage-wishlist
      Component:  graphics      |    Resolution:               
       Keywords:                |   Work issues:               
Report Upstream:  N/A           |     Reviewers:               
        Authors:  Tobias Weich  |     Merged in:               
   Dependencies:                |      Stopgaps:               
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Comment (by twch):

 Hi

 thanks for the extensive improvements!

 I did the following in order to test the patches:

 {{{
 $ ./sage --testall --long
 all tests passed
 }}}

 {{{
 /sage -docbuild reference html
 }}}
 Built without errors or warnings

 checked coverage of changed files:
 There are only some old missing coverages in hyperbolic_arc and
 hyperbolic_triangle. But I'm not sure how one should test them reasonably.

 The only thing which seems to be a little bit unlogical for me is:

 {{{
         301         Linestyles with ``"default"`` or ``"steps"`` in them
 should also be
         302         properly handled.  For instance, matplotlib
 understands only the short
         303         version when ``"steps"`` is used::
         304
         305             sage: get_matplotlib_linestyle("default", "short")
         306             ''
         307             sage: get_matplotlib_linestyle("steps--", "short")
         308             'steps--'
         309             sage: get_matplotlib_linestyle("steps-predashed",
 "long")
         310             'steps-pre--'
 }}}

 Wouldn't the following be more reasonable: If matplotlib in some functions
 only understand linestyles "stepsdashed" the function
 get_matplotlib_linestyle should be called with the "short" keyword (as you
 do it in lines.py) but the keyword shouldn't be ignored in the function
 itself. But I don't see that this makes any problems so its just a
 question.

 I also tried to play with the enhanced functions and encountered no
 further problems.

 In any case: Since I'm inexperienced someone more experienced should have
 a final look in order to confirm the patches.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13834#comment:9>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to