+1 Agree. I've run into this before Doug
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Maris Nartiss <[email protected]> wrote: > This definitely needs a flag + explanation in documentation. > > Taking into account philosophy behind GRASS raster processing, I would > say - default should be to apply MASK, as MASK affects all raster > reading operations (unless stated otherwise or requested by user). > > Maris. > > > 2015-10-06 19:15 GMT+03:00 Martin Landa <[email protected]>: > > 2015-10-06 18:13 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <[email protected] > >: > >> But this was a bug that you fixed in r66421, or ? > > > > yes, it was. I was just wondering why the module should ignore the > > mask. It was answered. Martin > > > > -- > > Martin Landa > > http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa > > http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Doug Newcomb USFWS Raleigh, NC 919-856-4520 ext. 14 [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the Interior. Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats. As a federal employee, my email may be subject to FOIA request.
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
