#358: new flag for r.quantile to produce output compatible with r.recode
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-develbranch6
Keywords: r.quantile | Platform: All
Cpu: All |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Small patch to re-format output from r.quantile. Default output looks like
this
{{{
r.quantile in=beam_150 quantiles=5
0:20.000000:7440.040527
1:40.000000:7512.872559
2:60.000000:7611.160645
3:80.000000:7611.161133
}}}
#358: new flag for r.quantile to produce output compatible with r.recode
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-develbranch6
Resolution: | Keywords: r.quantile
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by glynn):
Replying to [ticket:358 dylan]:
> Small patch to re-format output from r.quantile.
> Patch is attached.
I've committed a modified version of this as r34219 (7.0). The behaviour
is identical, but the resulting diff is a bit simpler.
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM, GRASS GIS <trac@osgeo.org> wrote:
#358: new flag for r.quantile to produce output compatible with r.recode
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-develbranch6
Resolution: | Keywords: r.quantile
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by glynn):
Replying to [ticket:358 dylan]:
> Small patch to re-format output from r.quantile.
> Patch is attached.
I've committed a modified version of this as r34219 (7.0). The behaviour
is identical, but the resulting diff is a bit simpler.
Thanks Glynn. I figured this would be universally useful. How hard
would be it be to apply this to the 6.4 branch?
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Dylan Beaudette
<dylan.beaudette@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM, GRASS GIS <trac@osgeo.org> wrote:
#358: new flag for r.quantile to produce output compatible with r.recode
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: 6.4.0
Component: Raster | Version: svn-develbranch6
Resolution: | Keywords: r.quantile
Platform: All | Cpu: All
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by glynn):
Replying to [ticket:358 dylan]:
> Small patch to re-format output from r.quantile.
> Patch is attached.
I've committed a modified version of this as r34219 (7.0). The behaviour
is identical, but the resulting diff is a bit simpler.
Thanks Glynn. I figured this would be universally useful. How hard
would be it be to apply this to the 6.4 branch?
<dylan.beaudette@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:26 PM, GRASS GIS <trac@osgeo.org> wrote:
>> #358: new flag for r.quantile to produce output compatible with r.recode
>> --------------------------+---------------------------------------------
>>---- Reporter: dylan | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
>> Type: enhancement | Status: new
>> Priority: minor | Milestone: 6.4.0
>> Component: Raster | Version: svn-develbranch6
>> Resolution: | Keywords: r.quantile
>> Platform: All | Cpu: All
>> --------------------------+---------------------------------------------
>>---- Comment (by glynn):
>>
>> Replying to [ticket:358 dylan]:
>> > Small patch to re-format output from r.quantile.
>> >
>> > Patch is attached.
>>
>> I've committed a modified version of this as r34219 (7.0). The
>> behaviour is identical, but the resulting diff is a bit simpler.
>
> Thanks Glynn. I figured this would be universally useful. How hard
> would be it be to apply this to the 6.4 branch?