[GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 32, Issue 39

[Michael Barton]

On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:21 AM, <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org 
 > wrote:

> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:21:17 +0100
> From: "Martin Landa" <landa.martin at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] 6.4rc1
> To: Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>
> Cc: grass-dev <grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f8fe65c40812180321x5f978efqda73bb9c9a67ea0f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> 2008/12/1 Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com>:
>> 2008/12/1 Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>:
>>> so what remains todo befor 6.4rc1? IMO lib API and module list  
>>> should be
>>> frozen at that point, which means creating releasebranch_6_4. No  
>>> need to
>>
>> I also added to the list nviz_cmd module. I am not sure about its
>> name. Any ideas?
>>
>> nviz.cmd
>
> I remember votes for d.3d and votes again this proposal. Any consensus
> before rc1? Personally I have nothing against d.3d. One of the options
> would  to rename d.nviz to something else, e.g. d.nviz.fly and d.nviz
> use for nviz_cmd(?)

d.* commands produce a visualization in a display window. d.nviz seems  
the obvious one, though I don't have any objections to d.3d either.  
The current d.nviz is really intended to create a fly-through path for  
nviz--interactively or non-interactively. It won't work interactively  
on anything but an xterm, so d.nviz is kind of a misnomer. We don't  
have a prefix for 3D modules, thought maybe we should think of one.  
Lacking that, nviz.flythough is the most accurate description, or  
perhaps v.nviz.flythrough since you set (sort of) vector points to  
create the path.

Michael