>By the way, what do you think of my idea to stuff the added flux value into the image as a member? (cf. the third comment on this issue page.) So you would just write im = obj.draw(dx=0.3), and the added flux would be stored as im.added_flux (or im.flux_added -- I'm not sure which is better). I checked that this would work. You can just add the item to the im object and it accepts it just fine, even thought he im is a wrapped C++ object.

> I think this syntax is a bit nicer. And it wouldn't be backwards incompatible for draw commands (although it would be for drawShoot commands), so it wouldn't break as much existing code.

That is a definite consideration, a real bonus to the proposed scheme.  And more generally I agree that the syntax is nicer (I vote for `added_flux` btw...).  So yes, thanks for flagging that up, I think that would be great.