It was decided in the dev call today that we want to deprecate arrow() because of its awkward dependence on the axis scales. ...
As an alternative, we want to introduce a similar replacement vector(x, y, dx, dy, ...) where the parameters are still in data space, but the arrow shape is not tied to the data. This should be implemented based on FancyArrowPatch which is also the basis for annotate() arrows. The additional parameters will be governed by the FancyArrowPatch capabilities, maybe be simply arrowprops like in annotate(). We may try to make an effort to choose their defaults in a way that will result in an arrow similar to arrow() with default settings. Whether that's possible and reasonable is to be tested.
The arrow() deprecation should point to vector() and annotate() depending on users needs.
Originally posted by @timhoffm in #22382 (comment)
It was decided in the dev call today that we want to deprecate
arrow()because of its awkward dependence on the axis scales. ...As an alternative, we want to introduce a similar replacement
vector(x, y, dx, dy, ...)where the parameters are still in data space, but the arrow shape is not tied to the data. This should be implemented based onFancyArrowPatchwhich is also the basis forannotate()arrows. The additional parameters will be governed by theFancyArrowPatchcapabilities, maybe be simplyarrowpropslike inannotate(). We may try to make an effort to choose their defaults in a way that will result in an arrow similar toarrow()with default settings. Whether that's possible and reasonable is to be tested.The
arrow()deprecation should point tovector()andannotate()depending on users needs.Originally posted by @timhoffm in #22382 (comment)