[GRASS-dev] Re: g.rename consolidation

[Michael Barton]

I'll offer a strong second to this opinion.

Michael


On 2/26/07 1:43 AM, "Jáchym Čepický" <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

__________________________________________
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