Comments for "Map_Projection"

» Submit Your Comment
Please log in to enter your comment. If you are not a registered PEAR developer, you can comment by sending an email to
» Comments
  • Philippe Jausions  [2005-03-13 14:56 UTC]

    This looks interesting.

    Some PEAR Coding Standard misses:

    - Your package is named Map_Projection, so it would go under Math/Map/Projection folder. I'm not sure if "Map" should be a category on its own under Math. Otherwise you could go with MapProjection as package name... Note: This is not a request to change the name of the package.

    - Please refer to PEAR Coding Standard page for comment block format, especially for the function comment. The "/**functionName" format you're using is not correct.

    - Put comment block for class properties/members (see PEAR CS again)

    - Class naming (PEAR CS again). I believe Linear_Projection should become Map_Projection and Lambert_Conformal_Conic_Projection should become Math_Map_Projection_LambertComformalConic and the same for other classes.

    - Since you say there are many ways to project 3D data into a 2D plan, I suggest to use a factory pattern to set the projection method to be used. Something like: Math_Map_Projection::factory('LambertComformalConic');

    - PEAR CS: Add if methods are public, private, protected...

    - If not done so already, please submit a bug regarding the white space in the Matrix package.

    Good work otherwise...

  • Daniel O'Connor  [2007-12-17 22:48 UTC]

    Is there any further thought about this particular proposal? It'd be quite useful to have with one or two usage examples I'd imagine.
  • Michael Gauthier  [2011-01-30 22:16 UTC]

    Michal, are you still working on this? Please let us know if you are not.