On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:22 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:24 +0200
From: "Markus Neteler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [GRASS-dev] r.colors confusion with "color", "rules", and
"raster" options
To: "GRASS developers list" <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,
the manual of 6.4 r.colors says:
"The rules color table type will cause r.colors to read color table
specifications from standard
input (stdin) and will build the color table accordingly.
"
r.colors help | grep rules
...
color Type of color table
options: aspect,aspectcolr,bcyr,bgyr,byg,byr,curvature,
differences,elevation,etopo2,evi,grey,grey1.0,grey255,
gyr,ndvi,population,rainbow,ramp,ryb,ryg,sepia,slope,
srtm,terrain,wave,random,grey.eq,grey.log,rules
...
rules: create new color table based on user-specified rules
...
rules Path to rules file
but:
r.colors map=gpcp_1dd_p1d.2002_sum color=rules rules=color_tab.col
ERROR: "color", "rules", and "raster" options are mutually exclusive
This shouldn't cause this error. It seems to think that the raster
option has been used (when it hasn't). A new bug recently introduced?
Michael
I know, I know.. but it is far from intuitive... any ideas to
improve this
behaviour/docs?
This works of course...:
r.colors map=gpcp_1dd_p1d.2002_sum rules=color_tab.col
Color table for <gpcp_1dd_p1d.2001_sum> set to color_tab.col
The first command version above doesn't look harmful to me, could we
(re)enable it?
thanks
Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
