[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pygame] PixelArray question



On, Thu Aug 23, 2007, Brian Fisher wrote:

> On 8/22/07, Marcus von Appen <mva@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sure. And anything else, what might be added to the PixelArray later on,
> > as well. As a result we would have a glorious
> > can-do-anything-implements-all-python-interfaces class called Surface :-).
> >
> Smiley notwithstanding, your entire argument that pixelarray
> functonality shouldn't be in surface is a Reductio ad absurdum
> argument. It presumes that if you would add this one thing, everything
> else would also be added. Using that logic, then we should never add
> any functionality to Surface - ever - because it would be the
> beginning of a landslide of kitchen sinks freely flowing into surface.

No - separate purposes are best dealt with in separate, non-interfering
cases. As you clearly state later on in your mail, PixelArray serves a
complete own need with a completely own (currently only a minimum)
function set.

My short- to midterm goals are full mapping support (array[x1:x2, y1:y2]
...), maybe the one or other fast manipulation function and whatever
else might fit. Putting all this functionality directly into the Surface
does not seem appropriate to me.
 
> The whole point of Lenard's question was that it seems like the
> functionality of PixelArray may be appropriate for being part of
> Surface, that it may be different from all the things we shouldn't
> add. You didn't address why it would or wouldn't be different than all
> those things. So basically I don't think your answer addressed his
> question.

Agreed. I must confess, that I was sure that people would know, what
the PixelArray class shall be capable of and what side-effects it might
cause if implemented in another way (esp. regarding the buffer interface
for interoperability with PIL, Numeric and anything else, which supports
direct buffer access). Sorry, if I kept myself unclear about it.

[...PixelArray might just be redundant...] 
> ...however keeping PixelArray as a seperate object but hiding it as an
> "interface" would still serve the same goals

How would the interface look like in your opinion?

[...]
> So I think the answer to why it couldn't be part of surface is slicig
> & automagic managing or surface locking...

And the completely different funcitonality purpose ;-).

Regards
Marcus

Attachment: pgpfrApcgs3vA.pgp
Description: PGP signature