The depth_type argument makes explaining the depth argument challenging because it changes the meaning of depth entirely. It's also never something we recommend using.
Proposal: Remove the depth_type argument and always use relative depths. This is almost always the best and other cases can be handled by passing custom points.
This breaks backwards compatibility but I think it's an improvement and we haven't reached 1.0 yet. It's also a rarely used argument so it won't impact many people. It's also never used in any of our docs. So I'm fine with breaking this without going through the hassle of emitting warnings first. Any objections?
Are you willing to help implement and maintain this feature?
Description of the desired feature:
The
depth_typeargument makes explaining thedepthargument challenging because it changes the meaning ofdepthentirely. It's also never something we recommend using.Proposal: Remove the
depth_typeargument and always use relative depths. This is almost always the best and other cases can be handled by passing custompoints.This breaks backwards compatibility but I think it's an improvement and we haven't reached 1.0 yet. It's also a rarely used argument so it won't impact many people. It's also never used in any of our docs. So I'm fine with breaking this without going through the hassle of emitting warnings first. Any objections?
Are you willing to help implement and maintain this feature?
Yes 💪🏾