From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Sun May 21 20:02:49 2006
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:02:49 -0400
Subject: [Rd] print.trellis(..., draw.in=...)
In-Reply-To: <eb555e660605211048g6b2a260p763947d77a8cb308@mail.gmail.com>
References: <971536df0605210441s5833a4cdr8286fdd23f560b7c@mail.gmail.com>
	<eb555e660605211019s31fac589hb4107dd88c6f69c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<971536df0605211033j7a57be5eo78d029d0ac489846@mail.gmail.com>
	<eb555e660605211048g6b2a260p763947d77a8cb308@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <971536df0605211102w8523b5du47cdc65cd2f856f0@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/21/06, Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Gabor Grothendieck <ggrothendieck at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks.  I should have realized that.  Now that I read it again with
> > your explanation it is clear.
> >
> > At the same time it would be convenient if one could specify a viewport
> > or vpPath, as well.  If that were the case we could also eliminate the
> > names.* methods in this example. (These were included to encapsulate
> > access to them so that the main code does not muck around in the
> > internals.)
>
> Probably true, but that's a change that belongs in grid. I don't want
> to make unnecessary assumptions about grid functions and then be
> caught by an API change (which is one of the reasons I don't want to
> be explicit in ?print.trellis about what the 'draw.in' argument must
> be).
>
> Deepayan
>

I agree.  Maybe Paul will consider adding something to facilitate
using a name, viewport or vpPath interchangeably so the user
does not have to concern himself with such details.  This seems
like a good application of OO.



[Rd] print.trellis(..., draw.in=...)
Gabor Grothendieck