Re: Measure and graph subpackages
Stéfan may be able to amplify, but IIRC he has some other code to put into measure that should more clearly differentiate the two sub-modules. Right now it's correct that both the content in 'measure' (marching-squares contour-finding) and in 'graph' (Dijkstra's algorithm on a lattice) are both about tracing paths through pixel arrays, albeit in very different contexts. So it might not be bad to re-organize. But contour-finding is not a graph operation, so such a re-org should be more than putting that code in the 'graph' package. Zach On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Tony Yu wrote:
I don't know anything about graph theory, but from my (naive) perspective, it seems that the graph subpackage should be part of the measure subpackage. Is this correct?
-Tony
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Zachary Pincus <zachary.pincus@yale.edu>wrote:
Stéfan may be able to amplify, but IIRC he has some other code to put into measure that should more clearly differentiate the two sub-modules. Right now it's correct that both the content in 'measure' (marching-squares contour-finding) and in 'graph' (Dijkstra's algorithm on a lattice) are both about tracing paths through pixel arrays, albeit in very different contexts. So it might not be bad to re-organize.
But contour-finding is not a graph operation, so such a re-org should be more than putting that code in the 'graph' package.
Zach
Oh, I meant the other way around: getting the minimum-cost path seems like something you measure in an image. (Sort of.) That was under the assumption that nothing else was planned for the graph package. -Tony
participants (2)
-
Tony Yu -
Zachary Pincus