I can continue making the necessary changes if that is OK
> with you, but I don't want our versions to get tangled up if
> you are still working on this aspect, or if you don't like
> the strategy modification outlined above. I committed
> dedent but not the other changes.
This looks very good and a definite improvement. You might consider
extending this a bit to have a custom class that handles all the
details. The general sketch is
class Kwdocd(dict):
def inspect(self, artist):
# add artist to kwdocd, using __name__ or __class__ to get the key
def expand_doc(self, method):
# interpolate kwdocd into method.__doc__ altering
# method.__doc__ in place
kwdocd = Kwdocd()
and then we have
class Line2D:
pass
kwdocd.inspect(Line2D)
class Axes:
def plot(self, *args, **kwargs):
"""
%(Line2D)s
"""
pass
kwdocd.expand_doc(plot)
This is untested but it is consistent with the work you've done so far
to simplify the API at the level of the derived Artist classes by
hiding the gory details.
JDH
John Hunter wrote:
> I can continue making the necessary changes if that is OK
> with you, but I don't want our versions to get tangled up if
> you are still working on this aspect, or if you don't like
> the strategy modification outlined above. I committed
> dedent but not the other changes.
This looks very good and a definite improvement. You might consider
extending this a bit to have a custom class that handles all the
details. The general sketch is
Very nice. I thought about making a standalone expand_doc() function, but your incorporation of it in the class is much nicer. I think I will put this on the stack and not do it immediately. I already made all the changes I outlined (couldn't stop once I got going) and can't quite face another pass through the files right now.
But in the process of making that pass, I ran into a small worm can: in the collections the kwargs and the setters don't match, so kwdocd['PatchCollection'], for example, is not quite right. The collection setter names are singular (set_color) to mirror the corresponding non-collection objects, but the kwargs are plural (colors). Although I see the (grammatical) logic of the plural form I like the singular form because I see little gain and considerable loss in having different names for the same functionality in LineCollection as compared to Line2D, for example. We could get around the problem by allowing the singular forms of the kwargs as well and deprecating the plural forms.
Another small glitch: it looks like you used the inspector to assemble the kwargs list for the Axes docstring, but some of these, like figure and position, duplicate required arguments so they don't really makes sense as kwargs--even though they would work. Did you edit out other such examples? Is that the reason the Axes.__init__ kwargs list is not being generated automatically?
Eric
···
class Kwdocd(dict):
def inspect(self, artist):
# add artist to kwdocd, using __name__ or __class__ to get the key
def expand_doc(self, method):
# interpolate kwdocd into method.__doc__ altering
# method.__doc__ in place
kwdocd = Kwdocd()
and then we have
class Line2D:
pass
kwdocd.inspect(Line2D)
class Axes:
def plot(self, *args, **kwargs):
"""
%(Line2D)s
"""
pass
kwdocd.expand_doc(plot)
This is untested but it is consistent with the work you've done so far
to simplify the API at the level of the derived Artist classes by
hiding the gory details.
JDH