From deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com  Sun May 21 19:48:20 2006
From: deepayan.sarkar at gmail.com (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:48:20 -0500
Subject: [Rd] print.trellis(..., draw.in=...)
In-Reply-To: <971536df0605211033j7a57be5eo78d029d0ac489846@mail.gmail.com>
References: <971536df0605210441s5833a4cdr8286fdd23f560b7c@mail.gmail.com>
	<eb555e660605211019s31fac589hb4107dd88c6f69c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<971536df0605211033j7a57be5eo78d029d0ac489846@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb555e660605211048g6b2a260p763947d77a8cb308@mail.gmail.com>

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



[Rd] print.trellis(..., draw.in=...)
Deepayan Sarkar