[Bf-python] get/setPixelF

[Theo de Ridder]

On 11 mrt 2008, at 14:13, Stephen Swaney wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:04:34AM +0100, Campbell Barton wrote:
>
>> Ok, so my arguments are not strong ;-)
>
> Can you explain your determination to needlessly break something?
> I admit I am having a hard time understanding this.
>
> Wny not simply add the new methods as new methods and be done
> with this whole conversation?

Well, I think Campbell was quite clear by stating:
> When writing scripts I find it especially annoying when there is...
> spam.someFunc() and spam.someFuncWorkProperly()

This discussion is however confusing minor details with main issues:

- the whole api is already quite baroque, reducing its complexity
	is not obtained by not adding a single method, but any
	hesitation to do so is quite healthy;
- the extreme flexibility of Python enables (unlike Java)
	to make internal datastructures efficient transparent on a higher  
level than
	1-1 wrapping the lowest datatypes; so the presence of specific python  
methods
	for individual pixels is a bad sign anyhow;
- as far as I understood the value range of the new get/set PixelF is  
a superset
	of the old value range; so anyone who wants to separate these ranges
	with separate methods can easily facilitate that at the Python side
	with full freedom in the name space.

Theo