Understood. These python utilities draw to Python canvases, and so
normally need the GUI to run. It may be possible for them to output
to a graphic file too. But they are designed to work in a GUI
environment rather than a command line environment.
I don't advocate ditching d.histogram. In fact, the *easiest* thing
from my standpoint, would be to have a sophisticated and slick C-
graphing module that I just had to call as a command and presto it
creates a graphic file that I can pop into a canvas. But I have some
understand of the complexity of writing this in C or anything else.
That's why to use high level graphing tools to do this.
Michael
____________________
C. Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>
On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:24 PM, Moritz Lennert wrote:
ISTR that we had this debate before, but I would plead for some
basic
graphing functionality to remain available outside of the GUI.
Now since
we have decided that python is going to be the scripting language
in the
future, it is probably reasonable to require it as dependency, but
please make sure that you can also get the results of d.histogram
into a
ps/png file at the command line.
Moritz
Moritz,
For command line folks, can't you just pipe the results of r.stats
into gnuplot? It would probably look better too.
Probably, but it means another dependency and, more importantly,
another program to learn.
But don't you think that it would be possible to separate the GUI
interface from the actual drawing code (both being in python) and
thus make the latter accessible also from the command line ?
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
