On 2 November 2011 14:58, Søren Hauberg <so...@hauberg.org> wrote: > 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.
Done. Carnë ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
