Hi Andrew,
Rather than adding **kwargs to the signature of __init__ for PWViewMPL, I think it would be better to add a field_parameters keyword argument. This would be a dict that would be iterated over to set field parameters. This is actually exactly how **kwargs is handled in the AMRData base class but I think mandating that the dict is referred to as field_parameters internally is a bit clearer with the added benefit that the API is concrete and doesn't rely on a somewhat advanced python concept. I'm not a big fan of how the data containers currently handle the kwargs dict and am -1 on exposing **kwargs in a user-facing function.
That being said, I haven't thought about this issue as deeply as others on the project have, and there may be very good reasons for using **kwargs in this context.
Cheers,
Nathan
Hi Folks,
I was wondering if there are any objections (particularly from Nathan) to adding an optional **kwargs argument to SlicePlot and ProjectionPlot, so that we can pass in field parameters like this:
pw = SlicePlot(pf, 2, 'GravitationalForceMag', center=c, width=(1e4, 'au'), particle_data=pd)
instead of the (very slighty) more clunky:
slice = pf.h.slice(2, c[2], ['GravitationalForceMag'], particle_data=pd)
pw = slice.to_pw('GravitationalForceMag', center=c, width=(1e4, 'au'))
I think it would be nice to able to use the same syntax to generate slices and projections whether or not a derived field requires extra field parameters.
Thanks,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org