[reportlab-users] Anybody else hungry for Image shapes?

Robin Becker reportlab-users@reportlab.com
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:43:25 +0100

In article <LKENLBBMDHMKBECHIAIAOEGFCKAA.andy@reportlab.com>, Andy
Robinson <andy@reportlab.com> writes
>I think the right thing to do with vector formats is
>try to import them as shapes.  Once we add clipping, 
>you could still import an EPS or SVG as a "collection
>of vector shapes in a rectangular clipping box".  
>Is there any difference in meaning between "Bitmap" and
>"PixMap"?  If not I think Bitmap is the most obvious name.
>- Andy
you are probably right about vector formats, but I really don't like
either Pixmap, Bitmap or any other kind of map. Those things seem to
have a particular meaning. 

These are images and I would prefer Image over *map even if there is
some confusion. PIL reads images (some may be bitmaps), but not all are. 

Andy's argument would apply equally well to the flowable Image (Dinu's
would as well, but I wouldn't really mind calling that an ImageFlowable
or the new thing an ImageShape).

We have three Images, but inside reportlab we mostly use PIL_Image as a
proxy for PIL.Image. The two others are wrappers around PIL_Image so I
guess calling them Image is OK unless they can clash. Will we ever
confuse shapes.Image & flowables.Image in the same context.
Robin Becker