[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-user] [GRASSLIST:1181] d.m/d.gis mysteries..

Michael:

>> I am anticipating that we'll drop d.m completely for 6.2 and merge
>> all the menu items back into a single file

Markus:

> To avoid confusion: it is not dropped for 6.2, it even (still?)
> exists in 6.3.

Michael:

In 6.3, I recommend 'decoupling' the menus of d.m and gis.m so as to
make continued updating of the latter easier.

to expand on what I think Markus was getting at, shall we remove d.m
from GRASS 6.3 completly? It seems too much work to maintain 3 GUIs at
the same time.

Hamish

ps - I think the same with the main GRASS downloads page. There are too
many stables.
6.1.0 -> current version (caveat..)
6.0.2 -> old stable
5.4.0 -> history section

I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

1++

Michael

On 8/30/06 6:45 PM, "Hamish" <hamish_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Michael:

I am anticipating that we'll drop d.m completely for 6.2 and merge
all the menu items back into a single file

Markus:

To avoid confusion: it is not dropped for 6.2, it even (still?)
exists in 6.3.

Michael:

In 6.3, I recommend 'decoupling' the menus of d.m and gis.m so as to
make continued updating of the latter easier.

to expand on what I think Markus was getting at, shall we remove d.m
from GRASS 6.3 completly? It seems too much work to maintain 3 GUIs at
the same time.

Hamish

ps - I think the same with the main GRASS downloads page. There are too
many stables.
6.1.0 -> current version (caveat..)
6.0.2 -> old stable
5.4.0 -> history section

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

WWW - http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton
Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671

Hamish wrote on 08/31/2006 03:45 AM:

ps - I think the same with the main GRASS downloads page. There are too
many stables.
6.1.0 -> current version (caveat..)
6.0.2 -> old stable
5.4.0 -> history section
  
I have cleaned it up and moved old versions to a separate page.

Markus

Hamish wrote on 08/31/2006 03:45 AM:

to expand on what I think Markus was getting at, shall we remove d.m
from GRASS 6.3 completly? It seems too much work to maintain 3 GUIs at
the same time.

Hamish
  

I agree - it would also reduce the number of cloned scripts therein and
semi-cloned menus.

Markus

Hamish wrote:
> ps - I think the same with the main GRASS downloads page. There are
> too many stables.
> 6.1.0 -> current version (caveat..)
> 6.0.2 -> old stable
> 5.4.0 -> history section

Markus wrote:

I have cleaned it up and moved old versions to a separate page.

Thanks. We abandon 6.1.0? (ok, we need all the 6.2.0beta testing we can
get)

Note DebianGIS has 6.1.0 and 6.2.0beta packaging material in SVN:
  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-grass/packages/grass/branches/6.2~beta1/debian/

It would be nice to have those [auto-generated?] into Alioth .deb
packages!
  http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/DebianGisRepository
  http://packages.debian.org/grass

.. and then a 6.1.0 package into unstable as soon as GDAL 1.3.2 &
friends fall into testing to ensure we have something quasi-modern in
place for Etch.

Then we can replace "Binaries: No release yet" (typo?) with a "Debian
GNU/Linux" link :slight_smile:

Hamish

Michael Barton wrote:

I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

And I wouldn't. There are continous problems with region handling in
gis.m that make me use d.m still for production. If d.m is removed from
6.3 I would use 6.2 often, which would make me less up to date with 6.3
developement and less capable of reporting bugs/fixing minor problems.

Maciek

Hamish wrote:

Hamish wrote:

ps - I think the same with the main GRASS downloads page. There are
too many stables.
6.1.0 -> current version (caveat..)
6.0.2 -> old stable
5.4.0 -> history section

Markus wrote:

I have cleaned it up and moved old versions to a separate page.

Thanks. We abandon 6.1.0? (ok, we need all the 6.2.0beta testing we can
get)

Note DebianGIS has 6.1.0 and 6.2.0beta packaging material in SVN:
  http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-grass/packages/grass/branches/6.2~beta1/debian/

It would be nice to have those [auto-generated?] into Alioth .deb
packages!
  http://pkg-grass.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/DebianGisRepository
  http://packages.debian.org/grass

.. and then a 6.1.0 package into unstable as soon as GDAL 1.3.2 &
friends fall into testing to ensure we have something quasi-modern in
place for Etch.

If 6.2 will be released beginning of next week (that's the plan, or ?), then can't we wait for that ?

Moritz

Michael Barton wrote:
> I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

And I wouldn't. There are continous problems with region handling in
gis.m that make me use d.m still for production. If d.m is removed
from 6.3 I would use 6.2 often, which would make me less up to date
with 6.3 developement and less capable of reporting bugs/fixing minor
problems.

When 6.2.0 is released, with gis.m as default, we are tacitly declaring
it "ready for production". If you feel there are still significant
region handling problems with 6.2.0rc3, please supply details.

Also, now's a great time for folks to proof-read the draft release
announcement:
http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass620.html

and blurb:
http://grass.itc.it/announces/abstract_grass620.txt

thanks,
Hamish

Hamish wrote:

Michael Barton wrote:

I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

And I wouldn't. There are continous problems with region handling in
gis.m that make me use d.m still for production. If d.m is removed
from 6.3 I would use 6.2 often, which would make me less up to date
with 6.3 developement and less capable of reporting bugs/fixing minor
problems.

When 6.2.0 is released, with gis.m as default, we are tacitly declaring
it "ready for production". If you feel there are still significant
region handling problems with 6.2.0rc3, please supply details.

Take the 'slope' raster map from spearfish (for example). Zoom in until
you see ~ 8 or 6 cells. You will see:

1. Cell's shape is distorted (not square).

2. The number of rows and cols declared in the status bar in the bottom
of the Map Display window doens't reflect what is actually displayed.

3. Now set current WIND to match the Map Display. Display the same
raster in X monitor - what you see in X monitor and gis.m's Map Display
window is different. Moreover, g.region -p reports a different number
of rows and cols than the Map Display's status bar, too.

Zooming in a lot is only needed to make the problem clearly visible.
The problem remains no matter what is the actual zoom level, if take a
carefull look.

Maciek

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

Hamish wrote:

Michael Barton wrote:

I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

And I wouldn't. There are continous problems with region handling in
gis.m that make me use d.m still for production. If d.m is removed
from 6.3 I would use 6.2 often, which would make me less up to date
with 6.3 developement and less capable of reporting bugs/fixing minor
problems.

When 6.2.0 is released, with gis.m as default, we are tacitly declaring
it "ready for production". If you feel there are still significant
region handling problems with 6.2.0rc3, please supply details.

Take the 'slope' raster map from spearfish (for example). Zoom in until
you see ~ 8 or 6 cells. You will see:

1. Cell's shape is distorted (not square).

2. The number of rows and cols declared in the status bar in the bottom
of the Map Display window doens't reflect what is actually displayed.

3. Now set current WIND to match the Map Display. Display the same
raster in X monitor - what you see in X monitor and gis.m's Map Display
window is different. Moreover, g.region -p reports a different number
of rows and cols than the Map Display's status bar, too.

A nice exercise to do is to zoom to a few pixels, save the current display to the WIND file and then zoom to current region. The latter generally has a larger extent than what was displayed...

Moritz

Moritz,

Here's the long story. Skip to the bottom for the short story.

The image in the TclTk canvas is a PPM graphic with a number of pixels
related to your individual screen characteristics, and the size and geometry
of the display window.

To zoom interactively, a box (or the equivalent) is drawn that has extents
in pixels. The ratio between the extents in pixels of the zoom box and the
extents in pixels of the display window is used to calculate the ratio
between the extents (in meters or degrees) of the original display region
and the new, zoomed display region (in meters or degrees). Due to request
from the developer community, g.region is run with the -a flag to align the
new region with the grid, however this is done inside g.region. Also, screen
pixels and grid squares (columns and rows) are always integers, but the
ratio of old to new size and region extents can be floating point numbers.

The new display region extents are used to generate new PPM graphic whose
numbers of pixels and geometry (in pixels) must fit into the display canvas
in pixels. The output graphic must fit into the minimum window dimension so
that you can see all of the displayed region.

An interactive zoom box will usually cut across grid squares--in terms of
its pixel to meter/degree conversion. If the grid squares are very small
relative to a pixel size (maybe even smaller than a pixel, which is often
the case for a displayed map), you won't notice this of course. A new region
will be calculated for display based on the conversion ratios and
calculations, modified by the g.region alignment algorithm.

If grid squares are large relative to display pixels, however, you can see a
zoom box cutting across grid squares. But, of course, the zoom box is only a
graphic object in pixels and "knows" absolutely nothing about grid squares
that you see in the display, because in the canvas they, too, are only bunch
of undifferentiated pixels in the displayed graphic. It still calculates a
ratio of box extent to display canvas extent, and uses this ratio to
calculate the new region from the old region. This is resized and realigned
by g.region -a to what it considers the nearest grid cell border for each
extent. A new graphic image is created that has the proper number of pixels
to fit into the display window. The relevant calculation are handled by the
GRASS PNG display driver. This PPM image (with it's representation of grid
squares as pixel groups) is finally displayed in the canvas.

Given all this, it is not surprising that, if you interactively zoom into a
map to display a few grid squares, you may not see in the display the exact
number of grid squares that you thought you might get. There have been pixel
to grid unit conversions, realignment of the region to fall along grid
square boundaries, and recalculation of the PPM image size into pixels for
display at least. If you really want to know the exact extents, you need to
call up the display region menu item and it will give you correct the
display region extents. These WILL be copied to the WIND file if you set
WIND file from the currently display region. But what gets shown on the
display may indeed vary by a grid square or two.

The rows and columns shown at the bottom are a convenience feature. Because
the text output from g.region that writes out extents in the proper format
to set the display region when in lat/lon does not also write out rows and
columns count, the rows and columns are calculated from the extents divided
by the resolution, and rounded to the nearest integer. Otherwise, g.region
would have to be run and parsed twice for every redisplay (including every
display window resize). This calculation is pretty accurate
(percentage-wise) when a lot of grid squares are represented in the display.
It has an increasing chance of a large percentage error (4 cells instead of
5) when very few cells are represented. Also, it is reporting the number of
rows and columns in the display region, but it cannot know how many grid
squares actually end up on the PPM image that is displayed after g.region -a
is run and the PNG driver creates an image. Hopefully, this explains what
is going on.

The short answer:

If you want to know exactly the extents of the display region and the number
of columns and rows, use the display region information from the menu. If
you want to exactly set the region extents, use g.region. Interactive
zooming can get you pretty close, quickly and easily. For high precision,
use the g.region module that was designed for this.

Cheers
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: Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:32:10 +0200
To: Maciej Sieczka <tutey@o2.pl>
Cc: Hamish <hamish_nospam@yahoo.com>, <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>, Michael Barton
<michael.barton@asu.edu>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] d.m/d.gis mysteries..

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

Hamish wrote:

Michael Barton wrote:

I'd be in favor of dropping d.m from 6.3.

Maciej Sieczka wrote:

And I wouldn't. There are continous problems with region handling in
gis.m that make me use d.m still for production. If d.m is removed
from 6.3 I would use 6.2 often, which would make me less up to date
with 6.3 developement and less capable of reporting bugs/fixing minor
problems.

When 6.2.0 is released, with gis.m as default, we are tacitly declaring
it "ready for production". If you feel there are still significant
region handling problems with 6.2.0rc3, please supply details.

Take the 'slope' raster map from spearfish (for example). Zoom in until
you see ~ 8 or 6 cells. You will see:

1. Cell's shape is distorted (not square).

2. The number of rows and cols declared in the status bar in the bottom
of the Map Display window doens't reflect what is actually displayed.

3. Now set current WIND to match the Map Display. Display the same
raster in X monitor - what you see in X monitor and gis.m's Map Display
window is different. Moreover, g.region -p reports a different number
of rows and cols than the Map Display's status bar, too.

A nice exercise to do is to zoom to a few pixels, save the current
display to the WIND file and then zoom to current region. The latter
generally has a larger extent than what was displayed...

Moritz

now's a great time for folks to proof-read the draft release
announcement:
http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass620.html

and blurb:
http://grass.itc.it/announces/abstract_grass620.txt

Hi,

re the QA section of the announcement:
(probably a section we should strive to keep functional!)

* I just fixed a broken link to the test suite, as Summary.html no
longer exists. Changed it to the 6.2 test suite summary, which seems
more relevant (and less red!). ps- on 6.2 page "Fail Summary" is empty,
maybe a "--end of fail summary--" line so it is clear entire page isn't
the fail summary?

* rather than link to a dull mailing list page with an incidental link
mid-page for the SOCCER site, should we link to their page directly?
http://web.soccerlab.polymtl.ca/grass-evolution/grass-browsers/grass-index-en.html

* any point adding a link to these guys?
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/GRASS

Hamish

ps- v.buffer data error listed in 6.3 test suite is probably because of
the fixed polygon cleaning bug- the result is indeed binary different,
but hopefully more correct. I don't know about the v.patch error.

Michael,

Michael Barton wrote:

[snip: very informative and long explanation]

The short answer:

If you want to know exactly the extents of the display region and the number
of columns and rows, use the display region information from the menu. If
you want to exactly set the region extents, use g.region. Interactive
zooming can get you pretty close, quickly and easily. For high precision,
use the g.region module that was designed for this.

Thank you for the very good explanation of what is going on. I imagined something like that. For my part this is not much of a problem, as I normally don't need so precise region settings, but I do understand that it can be frustrating for someone like Maciej who does.

The question really is: can we develop a way (probably not in gis.m, but maybe in the future wxpython GUI) to accurately set the region in a graphical, interactive UI ?

Moritz

Glad the lengthy explanation was helpful.

answer to your question below is probably not--at least I don't know how to
do so. The same processes would apply in any GUI given the GRASS
architecture. Furthermore, interactive zooming--where you must judge the
zooming extent by eye--always has some built in uncertainty. If you think
about drawing programs, the good ones provide an interface to type in
coordinates for high precision--like GRASS does. The only way I can think to
improve the situation is by some kind of snapping to grid cell borders or
vector object nodes. However, this will be difficult as long as what is
displayed on the screen is a graphic output from the GIS. At least I can't
think of how to do this. Maybe a "real" programmer could do so".

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: Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:18:53 +0100
To: Michael Barton <michael.barton@asu.edu>
Cc: Hamish <hamish_nospam@yahoo.com>, <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>, Maciej Sieczka
<tutey@o2.pl>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] d.m/d.gis mysteries..

The question really is: can we develop a way (probably not in gis.m, but
maybe in the future wxpython GUI) to accurately set the region in a
graphical, interactive UI ?

Michael Barton wrote:

Glad the lengthy explanation was helpful.

answer to your question below is probably not--at least I don't know how to
do so. The same processes would apply in any GUI given the GRASS
architecture. Furthermore, interactive zooming--where you must judge the
zooming extent by eye--always has some built in uncertainty. If you think
about drawing programs,

Michael, and All,

Please don't take it as an offence, but I must not agree. GRASS is not
"a drawing program". Region settings is one the most crucial things
about GRASS. Somehow d.zoom is pretty much reliable in regard to what
you see vs actuall region settings, while gis.m is not. In gis.m I
never know whether WISIWIG. So either gis.m zoom tools are at least
that good, or don't call it a stable, reliable replacement for d.zoom
(which it aspires to be, obvioulsy).

the good ones provide an interface to type in
coordinates for high precision--like GRASS does. The only way I can think to
improve the situation is by some kind of snapping to grid cell borders or
vector object nodes. However, this will be difficult as long as what is
displayed on the screen is a graphic output from the GIS. At least I can't
think of how to do this. Maybe a "real" programmer could do so".

Maciek

Three years ago, I had no idea that TclTk even existed, much less had any
idea of what it did or how to create an interface in the language. Although
computer-saavy and a GIS user, I had virtually no programming experience
beyond database application development in xbase.

I had just started working with GRASS after doing GIS in other platforms for
many years. I wrote Markus Neteler an email saying how impressed I was with
GRASS, but noting that the interface was problematic because many commands
were missing, others were duplicated, and the whole menu system was rather
confusingly arranged.

He wrote me back a brief and polite reply, pointing out that this was an
open source project that depended on volunteers to make it work. He then
suggested that if I thought the GUI should be better, perhaps I should
volunteer to do something about it. I mulled this over for several months,
but eventually tried to follow Markus' advice.

As many have noted, d.zoom has a number of complications because of the way
it changes the computational region. Some like it's mouse interface while
others find it confusing. It's written in C, so I have no idea how it
works.

There are much more serious issues about continuing to require a xmonitor
interface for further developing a GRASS GUI and porting it to Windows. So I
took up the challenge to rewrite the whole interface so that it no longer
depended on x11. This has come to about 18,000 lines of code. I am aware of
my limitations as a programmer and grateful for the help I've received, but
have pretty much done this on my own though painful hours of trial and
error.

D.m will be preserved in GRASS 6.2, and 6.2 will be available for an unknown
time into the future (GRASS 4.x is still archived and available for
downloads). So you can simply use the old interface if you prefer it.
However, I simply do not have time to actively maintain d.m, gis.m, and
develop wxPython.

I'll reiterate what Markus told me three years ago. I'm doing all that I can
with the skills, resources, and time at my disposal. If this is very
important to you, then the best thing you can do is to learn TclTk
programming and work to improve it.

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: Maciej Sieczka <tutey@o2.pl>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:16:28 +0100
To: Michael Barton <michael.barton@asu.edu>
Cc: Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>, Hamish
<hamish_nospam@yahoo.com>, <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] d.m/d.gis mysteries..

Michael, and All,

Please don't take it as an offence, but I must not agree. GRASS is not
"a drawing program". Region settings is one the most crucial things
about GRASS. Somehow d.zoom is pretty much reliable in regard to what
you see vs actuall region settings, while gis.m is not. In gis.m I
never know whether WISIWIG. So either gis.m zoom tools are at least
that good, or don't call it a stable, reliable replacement for d.zoom
(which it aspires to be, obvioulsy).

(Soeren, please take a look)

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:29:48PM +1300, Hamish wrote:

> now's a great time for folks to proof-read the draft release
> announcement:
> http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass620.html
>
> and blurb:
> http://grass.itc.it/announces/abstract_grass620.txt

Hi,

re the QA section of the announcement:
(probably a section we should strive to keep functional!)

* I just fixed a broken link to the test suite, as Summary.html no
longer exists. Changed it to the 6.2 test suite summary, which seems
more relevant (and less red!). ps- on 6.2 page "Fail Summary" is empty,
maybe a "--end of fail summary--" line so it is clear entire page isn't
the fail summary?

Soeren, could you re-run the test suite on 6.2.0?

* rather than link to a dull mailing list page with an incidental link
mid-page for the SOCCER site, should we link to their page directly?
http://web.soccerlab.polymtl.ca/grass-evolution/grass-browsers/grass-index-en.html

Sorry for the dull page. But right, I have updated the link to
the suggestion in the announcement.

* any point adding a link to these guys?
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/project/GRASS

Also added.

Hamish

ps- v.buffer data error listed in 6.3 test suite is probably because of
the fixed polygon cleaning bug- the result is indeed binary different,
but hopefully more correct. I don't know about the v.patch error.

I suggest to get out 6.2.0 by tuesday, 31 Oct.
There is no real reason to wait longer.

Markus

Markus Neteler wrote:

I suggest to get out 6.2.0 by tuesday, 31 Oct.
There is no real reason to wait longer.

sounds good. The only critical thing left on my list is getting gis.m
working with Tcl/Tk 8.3. Michael & myself are working on this, and I
hope the solution will be tested & committed within the next 24 hours.

Hamish

Hi,

i just wanted to say THANKS from all GRASS users for great job You have done
in GUI area. Based on Your work in GUI area, I always tough that You are
die-hard coder and long time GRASS developer. :slight_smile:

Working with GUI is a bit of art - You never will meet needs of all users :wink:

Maris.

On Sunday 29 October 2006 20:46, Michael Barton wrote:

Three years ago, I had no idea that TclTk even existed, much less had any
idea of what it did or how to create an interface in the language. Although
computer-saavy and a GIS user, I had virtually no programming experience
beyond database application development in xbase.

There are much more serious issues about continuing to require a xmonitor
interface for further developing a GRASS GUI and porting it to Windows. So
I took up the challenge to rewrite the whole interface so that it no longer
depended on x11. This has come to about 18,000 lines of code. I am aware of
my limitations as a programmer and grateful for the help I've received, but
have pretty much done this on my own though painful hours of trial and
error.

D.m will be preserved in GRASS 6.2, and 6.2 will be available for an
unknown time into the future (GRASS 4.x is still archived and available for
downloads). So you can simply use the old interface if you prefer it.
However, I simply do not have time to actively maintain d.m, gis.m, and
develop wxPython.

Michael

Dear Michael,

Please understand that I am in complete awe in front of what you have done in so short time. Gis.m is really great and the fact that it does not depend on xmonitors is a very important step to pushing GRASS even further. (In addition, it has finally opened the way for me to slowly impose GRASS on my windows-addicted colleagues.)

So, please don't take any of this as a critique of your work, but rather as a discussion whether there is a way to satisfy Maciej's desires. And I completely agree with your point that if this really itches him that much, than maybe he should think about learning tcltk and finding a solution. Or maybe learn C and see how d.zoom does it to see if this can be applied to gis.m...

I absolutely think that gis.m is ready for production. And I agree that we should discontinue d.m after 6.2.

We could maybe somewhere in the doc include a hint that if one wants really precise region settings than this has to be done with g.region and not with zooming.

Moritz

Michael Barton wrote:

Three years ago, I had no idea that TclTk even existed, much less had any
idea of what it did or how to create an interface in the language. Although
computer-saavy and a GIS user, I had virtually no programming experience
beyond database application development in xbase.

I had just started working with GRASS after doing GIS in other platforms for
many years. I wrote Markus Neteler an email saying how impressed I was with
GRASS, but noting that the interface was problematic because many commands
were missing, others were duplicated, and the whole menu system was rather
confusingly arranged.

He wrote me back a brief and polite reply, pointing out that this was an
open source project that depended on volunteers to make it work. He then
suggested that if I thought the GUI should be better, perhaps I should
volunteer to do something about it. I mulled this over for several months,
but eventually tried to follow Markus' advice.

As many have noted, d.zoom has a number of complications because of the way
it changes the computational region. Some like it's mouse interface while
others find it confusing. It's written in C, so I have no idea how it
works.

There are much more serious issues about continuing to require a xmonitor
interface for further developing a GRASS GUI and porting it to Windows. So I
took up the challenge to rewrite the whole interface so that it no longer
depended on x11. This has come to about 18,000 lines of code. I am aware of
my limitations as a programmer and grateful for the help I've received, but
have pretty much done this on my own though painful hours of trial and
error.

D.m will be preserved in GRASS 6.2, and 6.2 will be available for an unknown
time into the future (GRASS 4.x is still archived and available for
downloads). So you can simply use the old interface if you prefer it.
However, I simply do not have time to actively maintain d.m, gis.m, and
develop wxPython.

I'll reiterate what Markus told me three years ago. I'm doing all that I can
with the skills, resources, and time at my disposal. If this is very
important to you, then the best thing you can do is to learn TclTk
programming and work to improve it.

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: Maciej Sieczka <tutey@o2.pl>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:16:28 +0100
To: Michael Barton <michael.barton@asu.edu>
Cc: Moritz Lennert <mlennert@club.worldonline.be>, Hamish
<hamish_nospam@yahoo.com>, <grass-dev@grass.itc.it>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] d.m/d.gis mysteries..

Michael, and All,

Please don't take it as an offence, but I must not agree. GRASS is not
"a drawing program". Region settings is one the most crucial things
about GRASS. Somehow d.zoom is pretty much reliable in regard to what
you see vs actuall region settings, while gis.m is not. In gis.m I
never know whether WISIWIG. So either gis.m zoom tools are at least
that good, or don't call it a stable, reliable replacement for d.zoom
(which it aspires to be, obvioulsy).