flip camera2D init and from_raw_data

[alejcas]

This is the camera init/from_raw_data code flip we talk on discord.

Nota that from_raw_data cameras won't reference the same data objects but create new ones using data from the provided objects.

I have also fixed examples and tests.

I tested using the example codes and all worked

[DragonMoffon]

While I understand why it was done the way it was, this fundamentally breaks a core assumption of the Cameras. The CameraData and OrthographicProjectionData objects have to be shared between objects.
It would be better to create the camera with default values and then override the attributes later

[alejcas]

I can rewrite from_raw_data to build a camera with the arguments (c data and p data).

but i think it should be called “from_camera”:

Camera2D.from_camera(camera: Camera2D)

or “from_camera_data” with same arguments as “from_raw_data” but reusing the internal data objects.

what do you think?

rewrite done on fb025ec

[MiCurry]

I'm wondering if we might run into some shallow vs deep copy issues with from_camera_data. Specifically if someone tries to use the camera data from one camera to initialize another:

camera1 = Camera(...)
camera2 = Camera.from_camera_data(camera1.view_data, camera1.projection_data)

In that case I think adjusting either camera would affect the other, since they both contain references to each other. We should be able to easily test this in a unit test, which I'll make if I get some freetime today.

[alejcas]

I'm wondering if we might run into some shallow vs deep copy issues with from_camera_data. Specifically if someone tries to use the camera data from one camera to initialize another:

camera1 = Camera(...)
camera2 = Camera.from_camera_data(camera1.view_data, camera1.projection_data)

In that case I think adjusting either camera would affect the other, since they both contain references to each other. We should be able to easily test this in a unit test, which I'll make if I get some freetime today.

I think this is the intended purpose.

[pushfoo]

TL;DR: The docstring change to clarify the shared data object behavior is the most we should do in this PR.

@MiCurry the shared behavior is intended, but I agree we need to document it better and think about the CameraAPI a bit more.

However, this PR isn't the place for those changes. We can add a minimal docstring fix since @DragonMoffon and @DigiDuncan are finishing up prototyping improvements which will likely cause merge conflicts with further API changes.

[pushfoo]

LGTM. A bunch of changes are coming, so we'll fix lingering API & doc issues in subsequent PRs.