[GRASS-dev] t*. modules

GRASS GIS GRASS GIS developer
1

I agree that these need to be standardized. The rubric previously has been to have the prefix refer to the map type (raster, vector, voxel, image). To follow this rubric, should we be using r.t.xxx, v.t.xxx, g.t.xxx or r.temporal.xxx, v.temporal.xxx, g.temporal.xxx?

Michael
____________________
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671 (SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton, http://csdc.asu.edu

On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:37 PM, <grass-dev-request@lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:51:51 +0200
From: Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
Subject: [GRASS-dev] t*. modules
To: GRASS developers list <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
Message-ID:
       <CA+Ei1Of0cj8+GRVS-5VdSzcEh5zYJ3Yeavpi340bUYXX-Y63uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

scripts from `temporal` directory are introducing three new prefixes

* t.
* tr.
* tv.

and probably more in the future. I would suggest to introduce only one
new prefix `t`, so

tr. -> t.rast.
tv. -> t.vect.

What do you think?

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * Studijní program Geodézie a kartografie – GeoWikiCZ

2

Hi all,
i will keep on implementing new temporal core modules (t.copy,
tr.proj, ...) using the current naming scheme.

I will provide a tutorial till next week, to show the capabilities and
usage of the new temporal framework.
So you will get a better understanding of the conception. I hope the
purpose of the current naming scheme will be better to understand if
we have some usage examples.

I would suggest to restart the discussion of the naming scheme after i
have delivered the tutorial? IMHO renaming the modules is not a big
deal, but we need to consider the conception of the temporal framework
when discussing a new naming scheme.

Best regards
Soeren

3

Hi,

2011/10/25 Sören Gebbert <soerengebbert@googlemail.com>:

I would suggest to restart the discussion of the naming scheme after i
have delivered the tutorial? IMHO renaming the modules is not a big
deal, but we need to consider the conception of the temporal framework
when discussing a new naming scheme.

agreed, Martin

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

4

Dear all,
unfortunately i will need one or two more weeks for the tutorial.

Best regards
Soeren

2011/10/25 Sören Gebbert <soerengebbert@googlemail.com>:

Hi all,
i will keep on implementing new temporal core modules (t.copy,
tr.proj, ...) using the current naming scheme.

I will provide a tutorial till next week, to show the capabilities and
usage of the new temporal framework.
So you will get a better understanding of the conception. I hope the
purpose of the current naming scheme will be better to understand if
we have some usage examples.

I would suggest to restart the discussion of the naming scheme after i
have delivered the tutorial? IMHO renaming the modules is not a big
deal, but we need to consider the conception of the temporal framework
when discussing a new naming scheme.

Best regards
Soeren