[SciPy-User] is it worth working on ndimage documentation?

[David Warde-Farley]

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.

David

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 at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user