Closed jefferis closed 10 years ago
Should I go back to the original idea of trans3d()
?
Temporarily fixed in bf86f3b by switching to trans()
until a better name is invented.
I think we might need to look at a different architecture. To my mind your template brain objects are quite close to a reg
argument, so if one was doing:
xform(neuron, reg=IS2)
xform(neuron, reg=c(IS2, FCWB))
# NB mirror currently has a warp not a reg argument, because of how we have separated
# the flipping and nonrigid components
mirror(neuron, reg=IS2)
that would make quite a bit of sense to me. One might then need a method like as.reg
that converted them to a registration object. Right now we only have cmtkreg
objects, but maybe it would be a good idea to have a more generic reg
base class. But perhaps that is a separate issue – it would need a bit more effort since figuring out just what kind of reg object we had might require the same kind of registry approach implemented in fileformats
. Since we are presently only using cmtk registrations for anything serious, we could just add a as.cmtkreg.TemplateBrain
method.
See also #6.
Fixed in cd76438 by changing to xform_brain()
and mirror_brain()
.
grDevices is a base package so we can't mask that function