Shouldn't i.pca have, in both G64x and G7, the overwrite flag?
Nikos
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Nikos Alexandris
<nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
Shouldn't i.pca have, in both G64x and G7, the overwrite flag?
Ideally yes. It will be lacking due to the "prefix=" approach used therein.
The same applies to r.texture.
On the contrary: r.lake offers two overwrite flags 
Markus
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Nikos Alexandris
<nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
> Shouldn't i.pca have, in both G64x and G7, the overwrite flag?Ideally yes. It will be lacking due to the "prefix=" approach used therein.
The same applies to r.texture.On the contrary: r.lake offers two overwrite flags
I think that both the parser (parser usage) and GUI should be improved to
get general solution, please see:
http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2136
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On the contrary: r.lake offers two overwrite flags
r.lake has:
-o Overwrite seed map with result (lake) map
which is distinct from
--o Allow output files to overwrite existing files
I think that -o just overwrites input seed map by result. While --o
specifies that existing map specified by `lake` can be overwritten.
However, -o should be accepted only when --o is provided (not tested).
Moreover, it seems that -o and --o are confusing.
I actually wanted to change r.lake parameters and flags to be more standard.
xy -> G_OPT_M_COORDS
wl -> water_level
lake -> output?
elevation -> input?
-o -> ?
But I stopped at -o because it might need some larger changes. lake/output
option is not required because of the possibility of overwriting seed
raster input map. Interesting option, but it creates confusion. It is
needed? Maybe.
http://grass.osgeo.org/grass70/manuals/r.lake.html
https://svn.osgeo.org/grass/grass-addons/grass7/raster/r.lake.series/r.lake.series.py
Vaclav,
indirectly relevant with the standard flags discussion which is related to the
"prefix"es is the following:
I likely have zero idea about "why prefix-es and not suffix-es". And I might
just add noise but I mostly prefer adding a suffix. I think this keeps things
cleaner and makes it easier to search for maps when there are too many. They
are just, when alphabetiaclly ordered, close to each other :-).
So, why do grass modules prefer prefix-es? Why not suffix-es? Why not, at
least, give the user the freedom to select upon? Isn't this related with the
whole discussion?
Ευχαριστώ, Nίκος
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Nikos Alexandris
<nik@nikosalexandris.net> wrote:Shouldn't i.pca have, in both G64x and G7, the overwrite flag?
Ideally yes. It will be lacking due to the "prefix=" approach used therein.
The same applies to r.texture.
Fixed in r58311.
Markus M
On the contrary: r.lake offers two overwrite flags
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
nikosalexandris.net> wrote:
>> Shouldn't i.pca have, in both G64x and G7, the overwrite flag?
..
Markus Metz wrote:
Fixed in r58311.
Cool! Confirmed, it's there 
Nikos