What do you guys think of a flag in r.colors to apply an inverted color scale?
cheers
–
±----------------------------------------------------------+
Carlos Henrique Grohmann - Guano
Visiting Researcher at Kingston University London - UK
Geologist M.Sc - Doctorate Student at IGc-USP - Brazil
Linux User #89721 - carlos dot grohmann at gmail dot com
±----------------------------------------------------------+
“Good morning, doctors. I have taken the liberty of removing Windows 95 from my hard drive.”
–The winning entry in a “What were HAL’s first words” contest judged by 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY creator Arthur C. Clarke
if (flag.n->answer)
{
G_invert_colors(&colors);
colors = colors_tmp;
}
The only issue is whether the inversion should come before or after
logarithmic scaling (I think that it matters, although I haven't
actually checked).
As more transforms are added, it's looking more important to replace
the various flags with an option, e.g. trans=log,eq,inv.
NOTE: this will add another situation where the GUI's assumption that
opt->multiple=YES implies a set (rather than a list) will fail.
The only issue is whether the inversion should come before or after
logarithmic scaling (I think that it matters, although I haven't
actually checked).
I think that it matters too, and I put it before the scaling.
(flipping it is conceptually a linear operation, don't apply a linear
operation to log-transformed data; or if you prefer, keep the rule defn
code separate from the math post-processing code)