>
> Would it make more sense to call this plot_2d()?
>
I think ``plot`` will mean 2d plots. I think that is how mathematica
and maple does 2d plots. plot_2d seems to be a overkill. But I don't
really have any strong objection to plot_2d also.
>
> To make things clearer, I easily envision us creating a bunch of
> plotting functions. Just look at systems like Maple or Sage that have
> a good plotting system. They have a ton of specialized plotting
> functions, which make it easier to plot various kinds of expressions
> or concepts. Of course, we may consider that most of these are not
> important enough to import by default.
>
> I also thought of another disadvantage. If we want to plot non-Expr
> objects, it's not clear what function to use any more. For example,
> suppose we wanted to add a way to plot the objects in the geometry
> module. If I want to plot Circle, should I use plot_implicit? or
> plot_2d? Maybe create a geometry_plot() function. Or should we just
> require it to be Circle.plot? With the plot() heuristic, at least
> plot(Circle) could work. This is perhaps just a special case of the
> above point.
>
Yeah this seems to be important. I think in that case, Circle.plot() makes
sense or geometry_plot. I am not that supportive of Circle.plot() because
we would want to plot a combination of geometric objects. I think something
like geometry_plot will be better. But the number of plot functions can
become
very large.We can have, vector plots for differential geometry etc. But it
will
always be better to create new plot functions rather than add new heuristics
to plot.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sympy/-/Po2lcFZjJE8J.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
