From: Carnë D. <car...@gm...> - 2012-09-24 08:40:47
|
On 21 September 2012 16:10, adam aitkenhead <ada...@ho...> wrote: >> From: car...@gm... >> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:53:56 +0200 >> >> On 21 September 2012 10:18, adam aitkenhead <ada...@ho...> >> wrote: >> > The underlying read function has a different calling syntax from Matlab, >> > as >> > it reads both the header and the image in one go (I wrote it like that >> > before I realized there were similar functions in Matlab). However I've >> > also written functions which call it using the same format as >> > analyze75info >> > and analyze75read. This does mean that it runs slower than Matlab, but >> > it >> > shouldn't be difficult to change it to read only the appropriate parts >> > if >> > needed. >> >> It's ok to do more than the matlab functions, there's plenty of >> examples where that is the case. It's just not very good to have >> conflicts with their API. So if your analyze75read works as in >> "[image, header] = analyze75read (fname)", it's still matlab >> compatible while being more useful at the same time. It seems to me >> that matlab also has a analyze75info function, maybe you'd like to >> make it compatible? I'm planning on making a release of the image >> package Sunday in case you are interested in having your functions >> included now. Otherwise they can still be included on the next >> release. >> >> Carnë > > I probably won't have a chance to send it before Sunday (the files are on my > laptop which I don't have with me this weekend). But I should be able to > send it next week, so the following release should be no problem. > Thanks, > Adam This is taking me more time than initially expected. If you want, could still try to add them to this release. Carnë |