[GRASS-dev] ctypes naming convention - grass.py

[Martin Landa]

Hi,

2011/3/8 Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>:

>> is there any special reason why libgis is named in ctypes
>> interface as grass.py [1]. I would vote for gis.py to keep
>> consistency in names.
>
> fwiw, on a system with many python libraries available, I'd guess
> that "import grass" was a lot more specific than "import gis".

you are always importing this module from the `grass` packages, so

import grass.lib.grass as grass

or

from grass.lib import grass

So I really don't see any problem here. Moreover `grass` makes
impression that it's some generic module for GRASS Python API, which
is not true. So it's confusing at the end.

import grass.lib.gis as gis

or

from grass.lib import gis

seems to be quite OK for me.

> I'd assume most people have more than one GIS software installed,
> and many GIS software do python these days, so would the change
> lead to conflicts? or would it just be exposed internally?

You can always use

from grass.lib import gis as libgis

Current

`grass.lib.grass` seems to be weird to me, braking naming convention,
confusing for the user. What about

import grass.lib.vector

I would assume that there can me tons of packages with name 'vector'.
>From this point  of view 'gis' as package name is less common ;-)

Martin

-- 
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa