Thanks a lot for your feedback, Bruce. I just think, it is not good that data syntax of therion is different from survex. That's all. I have just finished drawing of some complex project, and I have a huge bug list, that needs to be fixed first - e.g. some symbols not displaying in the legend and much more. Also finally loch does not start on my debian machine - so I will be hopefully able to fix this bug. What will come next, we will see. Best regards, S. On 3 November 2011 09:34, Bruce <bruce@tomo.co.nz> wrote:
Stacho
You are so accommodating!
Based on my reading of the Survex manual it would seem that Therion already has a superior means of defining arbitrary tubes – simply by drawing passage outlines.
So unless it is a trivial exercise don’t do it just on my account.
My vote for your valuable development time would be to bias it towards improving Therions information reporting in;
-list outputs
-map and atlas headers
And refining ‘map object’ management for map and atlas pdf outputs related to;
-bug fixes
-generally improving the ‘single data to many outputs’ paradigm.
These are the areas where I find Therion most limiting when it comes to managing a larger project.
On the other hand it might just be my imagination that is the limiting factor.
Regards
Bruce
From: Stacho Mudrak <lists <at> group-s.sk> Subject: Re: Is therion data dimensions like survex *data passage Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gis.therion Date: 2011-11-02 09:03:42 GMT (20 hours and 59 minutes ago)
You are right, therion's 'data dimensions' is not like the survex's
'*data passage'.
But I was thinking of it for some time already. I will try to implement it.
Thanks, S.
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk http://mailman.speleo.sk/mailman/listinfo/therion