Hi, 2009/5/8 Glynn Clements <[email protected]>:
[...] > Currently, those modules are named swig.grass, swig.vector, etc. That > was done to avoid a collision over "import grass". But "swig" is a > rather generic prefix to use. I had thought about changing it from > "swig.*" to "grass.*", and renaming "grass" to e.g. "grass.script". > > The question is whether e.g. "grass.vector" should contain the > functions from grass.py or the SWIG functions for the vector library. > IOW, which one gets precedence? Or should we make them equal and just > have grass.script.vector and grass.swig.vector? > > And should "swig" even be visible, or should it be e.g. > "grass.lib.vector"? It seems to me 'lib' as better name then 'swig'. Done in r37345 r37346 r37347 r37348 If no objections I will backport the changes to develbr6. I would vote also to backport them to relbr64 (rules for Python scripting should be same for 64/65), but it would probably require new RC (or wider testing of wxGUI). Martin -- Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
