Conversation
src/censure.jl
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whats the correct way to check bounds on CartesianIndex?
julia> a = CartesianIndex(2, 0)
CartesianIndex{2}((2,0))
julia> b = CartesianIndex(0, 2)
CartesianIndex{2}((0,2))
julia> a >= CartesianIndex(1, 1)
false
julia> b >= CartesianIndex(1, 1)
trueI need both the cases to be false for this to work correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Found checkbounds(). I'll make the changes :)
|
@timholy I have some doubts which I have written inline as comments on the files. I have tried to make the code fast by looking at benchmarks and ProfileView(Thanks for that!) checked the type warning for most things. |
src/censure.jl
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, can you wrap long lines? It means I have to scroll my browser window to find the "comment" button 😄.
|
@timholy This is ready for review :) |
src/censure.jl
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will fix the indentation.
fcc9937 to
ed82fc1
Compare
|
@timholy I am changing the Keypoint type to be an alias of CartesianIndex{2} instead of the current type since it is easier for calculating descriptors (can be seen in the upcoming BRIEF descriptor) - type Keypoint
x::Integer
y::Integer
end Do you have a better representation in mind? |
That's a good idea---you'll get a lot of very nice behavior for free that way. For future reference when you do create your own types, remember that type KeyPoint{T<:Integer}
x::T
y::T
end |
src/censure.jl
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
abstract container type. How about just Array{Int}(0)?
|
Aside from very small points, this seems fine to me. (I'll have to play with it to really kick the tires, but it looks very promising!) |
7229c7d to
1bae7e9
Compare
6813e5a to
ef86fc9
Compare
|
@mronian You don't seem to be working on this. Can I finish it off? |
|
Yeah sure. It is mostly ready, you will need to update the code to the latest Julia. I did not merge it since the docs were not there. |
|
In filter response for octagon filter, I don't think this is correct. The error wouldn't effect the filter response though. |
|
The filter response was correct since I had manually checked it for a few octagons and images. You can check it again to confirm. What seems to be the error in the code? |
|
It should be The filter response would come out correctly because in_sum=A + D - B - C. Swapping B and C wouldn't change in_sum. |
|
@tejus-gupta I don't think its wrong. |
|
Whoops. I mistook the lines you mentioned as those from the code instead of corrections. Agreed, it is incorrect. Go ahead, @tejus-gupta 😄 Sorry for the trouble! |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.