ons, 02 11 2011 kl. 14:54 +0000, skrev Carnë Draug: > Hi > > last year I implemented an extra argument to the imtophat function to > perform a black/closing top-hat transform on the image (by default it > performs white/opening top-hat transform. This was the only name I > knew and saw for them, in the image processing books and wikipedia. > However, matlab seems to have imbothat (which performs the > black/closing alternative). Goggling for bottom hat transform does > show a few hits about this nomenclature. > > Anyway, I added this extra function and made the extra option imtophat > use it. My question is: should we remove this extra option from > imtophat (leave a warning for some time saying to use imbothat first) > so that if in the future matlab adds a different extra option, we > won't break anyone's code?
I'd say use a warning for some time. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA® Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
