[MINC-development] Re: glim_image

[Jason Lerch]

On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Sylvain MILOT wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I'm not opposed to changing the name of glim_image as long as the
> current version remains online with its current name.
>
> As for glim_image not being general enough to deal with arbitrary
> dimensions, well I've used it successfully with 2mm data (91 109 91).
> At least the results were very close to an analysis done with the old
> traditional PET analysis template 1.34,1.72,1.5 mm^3 (128,128,80).
>
> I haven't looked at the code recently but I maybe I should have a peak 
> ...
> Or do you mean arbitrary amongst the individual observations?

The code hasn't changed in years, as far as I know (only the build 
process). I thought that it wanted 3D data, but that was a guess, so if 
your experience tells you otherwise than I am in all likelihood wrong!

Jason


>
> Sylvain
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jason Lerch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Andrew Janke wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Lerch wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On this note, glim_image and things not packaged, does anyone have
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> objections to glim_image being renamed (say to mincglm) and being
>>>>>> stuffed into
>>>>>> the base minc distro?  It is a nice pure vanilla C proggie that 
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> 'peter blessed' from what I know.
>>>>
>>>> Urm, it's not packaged? Could have fooled me. Check the statistics
>>>> directory under /software/source. And I see no particular reason to
>>>> rename it, though I don't have any strong objections either.
>>>
>>> The general consensus on this was to package glim_image as part of an
>>> extra_tools package was it not?
>>
>> Why create a new package called extra_tools - doesn't conglomerate
>> basically fit this bill?
>>
>>>
>>> If all that is missing is packaging this is a somewhat easy task.
>>> With respect
>>> to the renaming issue, I would only do this such that we can
>>>
>>>   a) dissociate glim_iamge from the minc_extras package
>>
>> Now I'm confused - you want to create a separate package for
>> glim_image? That already exists, nicely autoconfed and all. I thought
>> you wanted to add it to the extras package.
>>
>>>   b) get a bit of consistency into minc tools names.
>>
>> Heh. Good luck. Next thing we know you'll also advocate writing some
>> documentation ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> I'm still keen for mincglm or this too broad of a name?
>>
>> Isn't there some kinda rule that apps with minc in their name are
>> general enough to deal with arbitrary dimensions? In which case I 
>> don't
>> think that glim_image would qualify.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MINC-development mailing list
>> MINC-development@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>
> ---
> Sylvain Milot (sylvain@bic.mni.mcgill.ca)
> Positron Imaging Laboratories
> Montreal Neurological Institute
> Webster 2B, Room 208
> Montreal, Qc., Canada, H3A 2B4
> Phone: (514)-398-4965, 1996   Fax: 8948
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development