Greyscale reconstruction and merging CellProfiler code
Stéfan van der Walt
stefan at sun.ac.za
Sun Aug 7 17:00:47 EDT 2011
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:35 AM, Tony Yu <tsyu80 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's strange: I can't see any missing files. I don't get any missing image warnings from Sphinx, and I don't have any uncommitted files on my end.
If I look at your Git repo, I don't see noisy_circles.png, for example.
> That sounds like an interesting idea. I especially like the fact you can test *.py files without rebuilding all the docs. I can't find any examples of this on the IPython or PyMVPA github accounts (granted I didn't try *that* hard). Do you have any more info on this approach?
I can't find them now either, but I'll find out and let you know tomorrow.
>> Why don't we just shorten those names to morphology.grey_tophat etc.?
> I like the flexibility with namespaces, actually. For example, I could be very verbose and write:
> >>> from scikits.image import morphology
> >>> morphology.grey.white_tophat(...)
> or slightly less verbose and write
> >>> from scikits.image.morphology import grey
> >>> grey.white_tophat(...)
It seems like the grey, white and boolean morphology operators share
(or could share) quite a lot of code, and functionally belong
together. The main problem with a proliferation of namespaces is
helping the user to detangle the package.
How about we just make the grey-level operators default, i.e.
white_tophat etc., and if we then add boolean operators name them
More information about the scikit-image