Use vectorio instead of bitmap #11
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
# Conflicts: # adafruit_progressbar.py
|
These changes would make the library incompatible with Circuit Python version 5.x. It is probably worth giving some additional thought to this, and perhaps adding backward compatibility that uses the bitmap approach. |
|
After thinking this over a bit more I think it makes the most sense to keep There are other potential improvements noted in #10 that won't remove compatibility with 5.x versions. Those are better candidates for the short term. For now I will plan to create a separate library |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This changes the way the progress bar is drawn to use vectorio.Polygon objects. It results is less memory usage.
Running on PyPortal the simpletest with a print mem_alloc() added I get these results:
Current release mpy:
mem_alloc 155232Version from this PR:
mem_alloc 15136Anecdotally it seems like erasing back to 0 progress is faster than before, but I can't be sure.