Conversation
Fil
approved these changes
Aug 4, 2021
Fil
left a comment
Fil
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good! Since we're still in the 0.x, do we have to maintain any sort of backwards-compatibility? And if so, for how many versions?
Member
Author
|
We need to maintain backwards-compatibility for Observable until we ship version pinning. Otherwise notebooks will upgrade and break. Also, I’ve realized that the pattern in this PR is inconsistent with the pattern I proposed for basic transforms in #472, so I want to think about how to resolve this discrepancy before landing. |
This was referenced Aug 4, 2021
Member
Author
|
Closing in favor of #494. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #479.
My first take was to support Plot.normalizeX(basis, options) and Plot.normalizeY(basis, options). While that’s more consistent with Plot.mapX(map, options) and Plot.mapY(map, options), it’s not consistent with Plot.windowX(options) and Plot.windowY(options). So, I then decided it would be better to standardize on Plot.mapX(options) and Plot.mapY(options), and only use the two-argument form when you want to declare the output channels explicitly (e.g., Plot.map, Plot.group, and Plot.bin).
For backwards-compatibility we can continue to support the old form of Plot.mapX and Plot.mapY, but I consider it deprecated and removed it from the documentation.