On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Paul Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Markus Neteler wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to rename a set of modules as outlined in >> http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_7_ideas_collection#rename >> >> Raster: >> * rename r.in.gdal to r.import >> * rename r.out.gdal to r.export >> >> Vector: >> * rename v.in.ogr to v.import >> * rename v.out.ogr to v.export >> * rename v.mkgrid to v.grid >> >> Database: >> * rename db.in.ogr to db.import >> >> Any objections (the motivation is obvious)? I would also update > > Hi Markus, > Can you elaborate on the motivation? As it is I feel an obvious objection is > that this implies there is no other way to import raster and vector data > than through GDAL and OGR respectively - but I count 8 r.in.*, 14 r.out.*, 4 > v.in.* and 6 v.out.* modules in 7.x. So IMHO it is confusing.
Well, teaching GRASS over the year almost always brought up the newcomer question: "Where [censored] is the import module?". r.in.gdal or v.in.ogr is *not* obvious at all. Since GDAL support 50+ formats, it's a quite good approximation. Additionally, not (yet)part of my request, a subset of the r|v.in.* might be retired since r.in.gdal/v.in.ogr meanwhile do the job. Also, if r.import/v.import fail, still r.in.*/v.in.* are there as further possibility. > Also v.mkgrid is IMHO clearer than v.grid - in the latter it is not so > obvious what the module does with the grid. I guess it is consistent with > the names of other vector modules though. Ok, for me that's not very important. > But changing a module's name is > always confusing (choice of a good initial name for a new module is thus > VERY important). Yes. This was missed with r.in.gdal/v.in.ogr. Markus _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
