[SciPy-User] is it worth working on ndimage documentation?
Wed Jan 13 01:56:19 CST 2010
Thanks for your answer, David!
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:25:41PM -0500, David Warde-Farley wrote:
> Hi Emmanuelle,
> 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:
> > Hello,
> > 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
> > the
> > 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?
> > Cheers,
> > Emmanuelle
> > _______________________________________________
> > SciPy-User mailing list
> > SciPy-User@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
> SciPy-User mailing list
More information about the SciPy-User