Closed ohinds closed 11 years ago
Thank you, Oliver. When I wrote this I wanted to compare boundary_label_pairs with sulcus label pairs in the DKT labeling protocol. However, I looked up all instances in the code base, and if the boundary pairs were actually tuples, nothing should break; these vertices would simply be ignored (as they are currently). So I have made your suggested change and have changed "boundaries" to "borders" and "pairs" to "tuples" (as in "border_label_tuples") throughout and will push these changes soon.
The condition that
when building boundary_indices ensures that vertices on the boundary of more than 2 labels will not be labelled as on a boundary. This doesn't seem like desired behavior, and contradicts the documentation for the function, which says: "Label boundaries are the set of all vertices whose neighbors do not share the same label.".
One way to fix this would be to change the condition to
but I'm not sure if this would break assumptions in the rest of MB about each boundary_label_pair really being of length 2.