On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Moritz Lennert wrote:
This is all very interesting. It is a bit worrisome too. I don't
want a mean of an attribute column weighted by area unless I
specifically ask for it. This suggests that people using v.univar
may not be getting what they think they are getting. I think it is
an excellent option, but should not be a silent default.
Well, since the results are not printed, the problem doesn't really
exist. The patch I sent doesn't weight at all, just counts features.
How to count the features is a bit of an issue, but couldn't this
be left up to the user too--summarize by cat or by individual
feature as an option?
That's why I think we should have a library function which
calculates stats (i.e. extend what it is the v.class code), and let
the modules deal with such issues.
Moritz
Sounds very good to me.
Michael
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
