On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Markus Neteler wrote:
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.
Thanks - surprisingly it wasn't actually obvious to me that the motive was
newbie confusion! And yes I agree, good point - I also vaguely remember
when starting GRASS being confused as to when r.in.gdal might be useful.
And taken alone, r.import and r.export are very good names, easy to
remember and also quick to type. I guess it's just the inconsistency that
will then exist with r.in.* and r.out.* that I'm concerned about.
If r.in.gdal was renamed to something like r.in.multi or r.in.various that
would be one way of preserving the consistency. Renaming r.in.* to
r.import.* and r.out.* to r.export.* at the same time as renaming
r.in.gdal to r.import would be another possiblity for preserving
consistency. Neither of those are ideal; I'm not seriously suggesting
either of them.
Is the idea of the proposal then to make new users see r.import as the
standard import tool they should try first, and that r.in.* are legacy
modules to look at if they have difficulty or special requirements? If so,
I guess I'm generally in favour of it after all.
Paul
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
