[GRASS-dev] A portible shell for GRASS 7+ ?
wollez at gmx.net
Fri Jun 9 03:49:50 EDT 2006
I'm not an developer but a user of grass and I'm working on grass for
cygwin and I would prefer to get rid of cygwin, because I only need it
to run grass. But I don't think the windows command line is extendable
in a way that it is fully compatible with bash (even if all packages
from gnuwin32 (gnuwin32.sf.net) are installed). So I would like to have
an alternative shell for grass.
David Finlayson schrieb:
> Wolf, Joel:
> OK, in retrospect proposing a new shell for GRASS 7 was provocative. I
> don't want that kind pressure for a hobby project. Consider this a
> proposal for an optional download.
> Besides, you're preaching to the choir...search the mailing lists for
> my name and command line and you will find at least several rants of
> my own on this topic. I need full scripting capability for GRASS and
> access to Unix and custom programs I have written for my projects. I
> would never compromise that.
> So, why am I proposing a Python shell for GRASS?
> 1. I am intrigued by the possibility of making a Matlab of GIS. GRASS
> is the perfect candidate for this. Python and the IPython interpreter
> have all the tools needed to make a higher-level shell. Think of this
> as the exact compliment to Qgis. Where Qgis wants to make a GIS with
> lowest possible barrier to entry, I want to make a GIS with the
> highest possible productivity for intermediate to advanced users:
> * Imagine having a command line that auto completes options, layers,
> raster and vector names!
> * How about a display monitor that could be controlled by the command
> line or the GUI at the same time (a la Matlabs graphics figures)?
> * How about having complete access to the GRASS API via Python SWIG?
> * All in the same shell?
> Bottom line though is that if I want some creative control over how
> the GRASS CLI evolves, I need to shut up and code.
> 2. Windows GRASS needs this badly. The DOS shell is OK for some things
> but Windows comes with no tools for working with text, or databases,
> etc., etc., etc. Python provides a lot of power through its libraries
> and it is very easy to extend. Using IPython as a shell would really
> improve the tool set of native GRASS on Windows with no need for
> emulating a Unix environment.
> 3. I think a lot of GUI-only people would consider the command line if
> it was a little easier to learn and use. A GRASS IDE (if you will),
> might be really cool. It might be powerful, too.
More information about the grass-dev