Repository navigation
[MNT]: Is broken_barh redundant? #24827
Description
Summary
broken_barh() documentation does not mention barh() but they seem very similar. I'm able to replace calls to broken_barh() with a call to this:
def broken_barh_using_barh(ax, xranges, yrange, **kwargs):
kwargs2={'align':'edge'}
for k,v in kwargs.items():
if k == 'facecolors':
kwargs2['color'] = v
else:
kwargs2[k] = v
ax.barh(y=yrange[0], height=yrange[1], left=[x[0] for x in xranges], width=[x[1] for x in xranges], **kwargs2)So is there something that broken_barh() offers that barh() doesn't?
Proposed fix
It would help to document the difference if there is a meaningful one, otherwise perhaps deprecate broken_barh().
Activity
timhoffm commented on Sep 19, 2024
They serve different semantic use cases:
This kind of visualization is not too common but for example used to illustrate events / durations when x is time.
You can draw one through a sequence of calls through the other. As you could with fill() or Rectangle()`, but their interfaces (and implementation are optimized for the specific use case.
I don't see what to document additionally here they are just two semantically different plotting functions that happen to both draw rectangles. Somebody with the one use case would not come to the idea to use the other function.