Sounds like a great idea! If sometrhing like this can be done, we would have one less reason to shy away from FOSS.
> > For my 2 cents worth, it seems to make a lot more sense for a > *geographic* information system for all output to follow the same > spatial organizational standards. I understand the history of > the east > is 0 convention for parts of GRASS. And I also appreciate the > importance of not breaking code-dependent features within versions. > However, that does not mean that we should keep a > non-standard way of > measuring direction for select modules (like r.slope.aspect), while > measuring from north for others, simply because the program started > out that way. Version changes are a time when we can rethink and > standardize different modules that have evolved > independently. Scripts > are likely to break across the 6/7 transition for other > reasons anyway. > > That said, a functionally simple approach that would not be quite so > disruptive would be to add a flag to switch to count from east mode > (with count from north as the default) or even a flag to switch to > count from north mode (with count from east being the default if > backward compatibility is indeed very important in this case). > > It is important to get an idea of how many things actually > would need > to be changed. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > grass-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user > _______________________________________________ grass-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
