Hi,
I would suggest to rename given attributes of Flag/Option structure:
label -> description
description -> tooltip (or something similar)
Current naming is quite misleading and a little bit confusing.
In GRASS 7 'description' should be required, 'tooltip' optional.
Comments?
Martin
--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa
Martin wrote:
I would suggest to rename given attributes of Flag/Option
structure:label -> description
description -> tooltip (or something similar)Current naming is quite misleading and a little bit
confusing.In GRASS 7 'description' should be required, 'tooltip'
optional.Comments?
see this earlier discussion from March 2007:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.grass.devel/19258/
Hamish
Martin Landa wrote:
I would suggest to rename given attributes of Flag/Option structure:
label -> description
description -> tooltip (or something similar)Current naming is quite misleading and a little bit confusing.
In GRASS 7 'description' should be required, 'tooltip' optional.
Comments?
The current naming is accurate.
In a GUI, the text used as the "title" of a widget is called a
"label". So in the option/flag structures, the text which is intended
to be used as the label goes in the field named "label".
These fields aren't restricted to the GUI (both are used in the
command-line --help output and HTML documentation), so "tooltip" isn't
appropriate.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
Hi,
2009/7/11 Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>:
[...]
The current naming is accurate.
In a GUI, the text used as the "title" of a widget is called a
"label". So in the option/flag structures, the text which is intended
to be used as the label goes in the field named "label".These fields aren't restricted to the GUI (both are used in the
command-line --help output and HTML documentation), so "tooltip" isn't
appropriate.
sorry I couldn't find the previous discussion about this topic. Well,
would make sense to you to make 'label' mandatory. I still see as
confusing: if label not given, description becomes label. My
suggestion is to make 'label' mandatory. If label is too long then is
split into label/description.
Martin
--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa
Martin Landa wrote:
> The current naming is accurate.
>
> In a GUI, the text used as the "title" of a widget is called a
> "label". So in the option/flag structures, the text which is intended
> to be used as the label goes in the field named "label".
>
> These fields aren't restricted to the GUI (both are used in the
> command-line --help output and HTML documentation), so "tooltip" isn't
> appropriate.sorry I couldn't find the previous discussion about this topic. Well,
would make sense to you to make 'label' mandatory. I still see as
confusing: if label not given, description becomes label. My
suggestion is to make 'label' mandatory. If label is too long then is
split into label/description.
What problem is this trying to solve?
AFAICT, all of the requests for changes have been made based upon the
assumption that these fields exist for the GUI and for the GUI alone.
Once you correct that assumption, the current semantics are entirely
rational. Every option needs a "description" of what it's for; that
description goes into the ->description field, which is mandatory.
The ->label field is only useful in one specific case, namely the GUI,
where the description may be too long to use as the option's label;
this is why the ->label field was added.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
previous discussion about this topic.
besides the grass-dev thread see also minor mention here
https://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/1133
Hamish