[GRASS-dev] r.info -g

Hi all,

r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given* information
to stdout. From my point of view it would be better (maybe) to have
only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.

  -g Print basic information in shell script style

What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break backward
compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag -g is not
also nice solution.

Best, Martin

[1]
  -r Print range only
  -s Print raster map resolution (NS-res, EW-res) only
  -t Print raster map type only
  -g Print raster map region only

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

I very much agree. This the very thing I was posting about yesterday.

Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

From: Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:41:59 +0200
To: grass-dev <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>
Subject: [GRASS-dev] r.info -g

Hi all,

r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given* information
to stdout. From my point of view it would be better (maybe) to have
only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.

  -g Print basic information in shell script style

What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break backward
compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag -g is not
also nice solution.

Best, Martin

[1]
  -r Print range only
  -s Print raster map resolution (NS-res, EW-res) only
  -t Print raster map type only
  -g Print raster map region only

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

I also agree. Output everything in a machine readable format that isn't
visually difficult to navigate. It's only a few lines of information at
the most. However, it may be beneficial to some to have '-r' remain
separate (may break user scripts?).

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 00:28 -0700, Michael Barton wrote:

I very much agree. This the very thing I was posting about yesterday.

Michael
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

> From: Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:41:59 +0200
> To: grass-dev <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>
> Subject: [GRASS-dev] r.info -g
>
> Hi all,
>
> r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given* information
> to stdout. From my point of view it would be better (maybe) to have
> only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.
>
> -g Print basic information in shell script style
>
> What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
> tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break backward
> compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag -g is not
> also nice solution.
>
> Best, Martin
>
> [1]
> -r Print range only
> -s Print raster map resolution (NS-res, EW-res) only
> -t Print raster map type only
> -g Print raster map region only
>
> --
> Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa *

--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com> KB8UYR
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84 National Map Corps #TNMC-3785

Martin Landa wrote:

r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given* information
to stdout. From my point of view it would be better (maybe) to have
only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.

  -g Print basic information in shell script style

What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break backward
compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag -g is not
also nice solution.

We shouldn't remove existing flags, but an additional flag to print
all available information in a parsable format would be a useful
addition.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

Glynn Clements wrote:

Martin Landa wrote:

r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given* information
to stdout. From my point of view it would be better (maybe) to have
only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.

  -g Print basic information in shell script style

What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break backward
compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag -g is not
also nice solution.

We shouldn't remove existing flags, but an additional flag to print
all available information in a parsable format would be a useful
addition.

Glynn's right. But I hope that in Grass 7 the flag for a *complete*,
parsable r.info output could be changed to -g anyway (since g.region,
v.univar, v.db.connect, v.category, r.univar, r.sunmask, r.in.xyz use
it already).

Should it go to Grass 7 plans WIKI?

Maciek

Martin wrote:

>> r.info module has a lot of flags [1] which print *given*
>information > to stdout. From my point of view it would be better
>(maybe) to have > only *one* flag for this purpose, e.g.
>>
>> -g Print basic information in shell script style
>>
>> What do you think about it? It should not break any scripts in CVS
>> tree (maybe Add-ons?). Sure, it is not a good way -- to break
>backward > compatibility... on the other hand, just adding new flag
>-g is not > also nice solution.

Glynn wrote:

> We shouldn't remove existing flags, but an additional flag to print
> all available information in a parsable format would be a useful
> addition.

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

Glynn's right. But I hope that in Grass 7 the flag for a *complete*,
parsable r.info output could be changed to -g anyway (since g.region,
v.univar, v.db.connect, v.category, r.univar, r.sunmask, r.in.xyz use
it already).

consistency is good.

Should it go to Grass 7 plans WIKI?

Let's just do this in 6.3-HEAD. Adding more lines to the "r.info -g"
shouldn't be too damaging. The only problem it could cause (that I can
think of) is if someone used something like `r.info -g | tail -1` in a
script. I think that's minor enough and poorly written enough to not be
a major concern.

Hamish