[GRASS-user] Re: grassuser Digest, Vol 9, Issue 1

[Michael Barton]

I haven't yet tried this new version of g.region but hope to soon. It sounds
like g.region -g is now issuing an interactive terminal message. If this is
so, I need to note that we are trying to remove all required user
interaction via the terminal. Any command that sends a message and asks the
user for Y/N or something like that makes that command very difficult to use
in a script or GUI language. At least the --q option should kill all such
interaction. We should be able to run the command and have it return
whatever it returns (including an error where appropriate) without requiring
the user to interact via the terminal.

Thanks
Michael


On 1/3/07 12:41 AM, "Martin Landa" <landa.martin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 2007/1/2, Paul Kelly <paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk>:
> 
>> But the other issue is of course - should we be changing the meaning of
>> the g.region -g flag at all? Why not keep it as it is and add the new
>> functionality (key=value output in combination with any other flag) to a
>> totally new flag, to reduce confusion and enhance backwards compatibility?
> 
> not sure, there are *a lot of flags* in g.region module. Adding a new
> one which generally have the same impact as the -g flag (i.e.
> key=value output) -- I don't know.
> 
> Now `g.region -g` (still there is a warning message) is the same as
> `g.region -pg`. I think that the -g or --g flag should have the same
> meaning in all GRASS modules: to print parsable output. I changed the
> -g flag behaviour mainly because I wanted to allow user to use this
> flag in connection with other print flags, e.g. `g.region -eg`.
> 
> Regards, Martin

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton