Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Deprecation notice for change to interface of julia_plot #28924

Closed
DaveWitteMorris opened this issue Dec 29, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Deprecation notice for change to interface of julia_plot #28924

DaveWitteMorris opened this issue Dec 29, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@DaveWitteMorris
Copy link
Member

#23740 makes a backward-incompatible change to the interface of julia_plot. The purpose of this ticket is to provide a deprecation notice. Can this notice get into the 9.0 release?

This ticket is part of the metaticket #28923.

Component: dynamics

Keywords: Julia set

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28924

@DaveWitteMorris
Copy link
Member Author

comment:1

I will try to write a PR by tomorrow. I propose to revert julia_plot to its original interface (with a deprecation notice), and introduce an experimental function julia_set_plot with the new interface.

I have rated this as a major issue, but I am a newbie, and the function is not a core piece of sage, so I will not be surprised if someone downrates it (or tells me that I am out to lunch).

@mwageringel
Copy link

comment:2

I agree that ideally the changes to julia_plot should have been backwards compatible or properly deprecated. It might be too late to get this into 9.0, though, since we are already on 9.0.rc1, which is unfortunate.

@DaveWitteMorris
Copy link
Member Author

comment:3

I'm sorry I didn't get a deprecation notice ready in time for the 9.0 release. I think it is now pointless, but I will work on the other projects in #28923.

@DaveWitteMorris DaveWitteMorris removed this from the sage-9.0 milestone Dec 30, 2019
@mwageringel
Copy link

comment:4

No need to be sorry. It should have been done by #23740.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants