On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Martin Landa <landa.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > 2014-12-29 13:26 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratocha...@gmail.com>: > > > I think it's not necessary, it doesn't help with anything, everybody will > > keep using bgcolor anyway. We already have similar cases (pcurvature, > > nwalkers) which where already changed and we don't plan to add another > > underscore there. > > I meant color-related options. They are named 'color' or 'something_color'. > > what's special about color options? > What about 'background_color' option? Martin > > I stated my opinion on this earlier: I am against changing options which are easy to understand and people are used to them just because they represent a shortcut, especially when we don't have any good candidate. What would be the advantage of background_color? bg_color or back_ground_color can be at least shorten to bgcolor. However, since you did most of the work recently, I think you have the right to decide it. Anna -- > Martin Landa > http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa > http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa >
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
