On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Markus Neteler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Moritz Lennert > <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > I understand the concern, but I wonder up to which point we have to hold > the user's hand. The information is easily available in the man page. > > > > This is as if in R you would write out information about every single > output value a function gives you. In my eyes this would be horrible. > > I was referring to the output maps being created, nothing else. > That can be 0 to some outputs. > > > Let's leave at least part of the responsibility for understanding how to > use GRASS to the user... :-) > > I myself miss it a lot if that matters :-) > > Hm, if the message(s) would be parseable independently on the language settings (perhaps with message format set to GUI), GUI could use that information to add/re-render the layers. (Instead of current guessing based on the parameters.) Also if we will say no to the messages, we should remove them from all the modules because than users expect to see then in all modules. What you are saying about R makes sense but in case of GRASS, the modules are much more verbose (even without --verbose) than R functions (e.g. topology building), so few lines more does not make any difference IMHO. Vaclav > Markus > _______________________________________________ > 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
