Open davidhodge931 opened 3 months ago
I empathise with the consistency argument, but I don't think the current sistuation is creating enough friction to justify the trouble of changing this argument.
It'd also be good to get consistency now, before there is many extension facet functions - so that when developers make these they all use the same named argument to represent this concept.
Feel free to close if you're still are not persuaded
I find it a bit confusing having the
strip.position
/switch
argument infacet_wrap
/facet_grid
that does pretty much the same thing.An idea to make these consistent is to deprecate the
switch
argument infacet_grid
, and add in astrip.position
argument for users to use instead.Where in a grid of 2 facet variables, a character vector of 2 could be provided with "top"/"bottom" always controlling the x, and "left"/"right" would always controlling the y.
Also, It'd be cool if for the grid, it didn't matter which way around you specify the vector - as it would always know top/bottom relates to cols facet variable and right/left to the rows facet variable.