[GRASS-dev] GRASS 7: renaming of some modules

[Markus Neteler]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Paul Kelly
<paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Markus Neteler wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to rename a set of modules as outlined in
>> http://grass.osgeo.org/wiki/GRASS_7_ideas_collection#rename
>>
>> Raster:
>> * rename r.in.gdal to r.import
>> * rename r.out.gdal to r.export
>>
>> Vector:
>> * rename v.in.ogr to v.import
>> * rename v.out.ogr to v.export
>> * rename v.mkgrid to v.grid
>>
>> Database:
>> * rename db.in.ogr to db.import
>>
>> Any objections (the motivation is obvious)? I would also update
>
> Hi Markus,
> Can you elaborate on the motivation? As it is I feel an obvious objection is
> that this implies there is no other way to import raster and vector data
> than through GDAL and OGR respectively - but I count 8 r.in.*, 14 r.out.*, 4
> v.in.* and 6 v.out.* modules in 7.x. So IMHO it is confusing.

Well, teaching GRASS over the year almost always brought up the
newcomer question: "Where [censored] is the import module?".
r.in.gdal or v.in.ogr is *not* obvious at all.
Since GDAL support 50+ formats, it's a quite good approximation.
Additionally, not (yet)part of my request, a subset of the r|v.in.* might
be retired since r.in.gdal/v.in.ogr meanwhile do the job.

Also, if r.import/v.import fail, still r.in.*/v.in.* are there as
further possibility.

> Also v.mkgrid is IMHO clearer than v.grid - in the latter it is not so
> obvious what the module does with the grid. I guess it is consistent with
> the names of other vector modules though.

Ok, for me that's not very important.

> But changing a module's name is
> always confusing (choice of a good initial name for a new module is thus
> VERY important).

Yes. This was missed with r.in.gdal/v.in.ogr.

Markus