[SciPy-User] is it worth working on ndimage documentation?
Tue Jan 12 16:25:41 CST 2010
I think it certainly does. If scikits.image does ever supersede
ndimage (and I don't think it will - scikits.image is mainly focused
on 2D images whereas I think ndimage is used for lots of 3D and 4D
voxel images too?), it will likely take on functions from ndimage as
well... in fact I think there is a ticket somewhere that contains
parts of ndimage rewritten in Cython by the CellProfiler people (I
don't have time to dig through my email to find it).
Needless to say I think there is enough current use of ndimage that
it's not going anywhere any time soon.
On 12-Jan-10, at 5:02 PM, Emmanuelle Gouillart wrote:
> as I'm using quite frequently some functions in scipy.ndimage
> (mostly mathematical morphology operations), I was considering
> working on
> their docstrings on the doc wiki. Docstrings indeed don't conform to
> documentation standard and are often quite terse.
> However, I would like to know beforehand whether ndimage has a
> future in scipy, or whether if will be replaced at some point by the
> scikit image? So, it is worth improving the docstrings in ndimage?
> SciPy-User mailing list
More information about the SciPy-User