[GRASS-dev] [GRASS-SVN] r63797 - in grass/trunk: display/d.barscale display/d.colortable display/d.erase display/d.geodesic display/d.grid display/d.histogram display/d.legend display/d.mon display/d.northarrow display/d.rast display/d.rast.arrow display/d.rast.num display/d.rhumbline display/d.thematic.area display/d.vect display/d.vect.chart general/g.cairocomp general/g.parser general/g.pnmcomp include lib/gis misc/m.nviz.image raster/r.his vector/v.label vector/v.lrs/v.lrs.label

[Anna Petrášová]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2014-12-29 13:26 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna at gmail.com>:
>
> > I think it's not necessary, it doesn't help with anything, everybody will
> > keep using bgcolor anyway. We already have similar cases (pcurvature,
> > nwalkers) which where already changed and we don't plan to add another
> > underscore there.
>
> I meant color-related options. They are named 'color' or 'something_color'.
>
> what's special about color options?


> What about 'background_color' option? Martin
>
> I stated my opinion on this earlier: I am against changing options which
are easy to understand and people are used to them just because they
represent a shortcut, especially when we don't have any good candidate.
What would be the advantage of background_color? bg_color or
back_ground_color can be at least shorten to bgcolor.
However, since you did most of the work recently, I think you have the
right to decide it.

Anna

--
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
> http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20141229/87d20f25/attachment.html>