I have no suggestion but I just experienced problem with options. I have options: * elevation * end_water_level
So, when I write elev=... end_wl=... I get Sorry, <elev=> is ambiguous Because I could write also eleva=... eleve=... which I'm really not going to do. It is expected behavior but not exactly what I want. But let's say that it is just disadvantage because writing end_wl= instead of end_water_level= or end_w_l is nice. On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Glynn Clements <[email protected]>wrote: > > Markus Neteler wrote: > > > >> I'll look into using > the option-matching code for option values as > > >> well as names. > > > > > > Done in r57999. > > > > Is there any usage example? > > Rather than just allowing the entire option to be abbreviated to a > prefix, each word can be abbreviated individually, so e.g. > minimum_raster could be abbreviated to e.g. minr. > > There remains the issue that if one option is a prefix of another, the > shorter option must always be given in full, as any abbreviation of it > will also be a valid abbreviation of the longer option, and thus > ambiguous. > > Suggestions welcome. > > -- > Glynn Clements <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
