[GRASS-dev] Re: g.rename consolidation

[Jáchym Čepický]

Hi,

2007/2/26, Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com>:
> Hi Hamish,
>
>  [....]
>
> I think it is better to use G_message() (or more advanced G_ fn) for
> *all* module messages. fprintf (stdout, ) should be used for the
> *output* not for the messages. It mixed two different things together
> which would be better to separate. I think that mixing messages and
> module output would cause problems in the future. All message should
> be controlled by GRASS_VERBOSE level or GRASS_MESSAGE_FORMAT.
>
>

IMHO it makes sence to introduce more sophisticated functions fo
G_message_*. But to parse messages in any GUI or other interface woul
d be really complicated, if GRASS_MESSAGE_FORMAT would not influence
it.

In my opinion, GRASS modules are verbosed too much (e.g. see
r.terraflow). Message has for the user only then sence, if it is
error, warning or user will have to wait longer time (so G_percent
should be used imidietly after this). otherwise it is task for G_debug

So basicly, I would like to remove most of the "closing maps" and
similar messages. if you want to inform the user about e.g. how many
points were processed, we should use fprintf to stdout for it, since
this is not a message, but a result...

just my 2 cents

jachym

-- 
Jachym Cepicky
e-mail: jachym.cepicky gmail com
URL: http://les-ejk.cz
GPG: http://www.les-ejk.cz/pgp/jachym_cepicky-gpg.pub