Why do we have both r.mfilter and r.mfilter.fp?
I’m guessing that r.mfilter.fp works on floating point maps (or perhaps it produces floating point maps?). A quick read did not explain the difference.
Michael
C. Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Michael Barton <michael.barton@asu.edu> wrote:
Why do we have both r.mfilter and r.mfilter.fp?
I'm guessing that r.mfilter.fp works on floating point maps (or perhaps it
produces floating point maps?). A quick read did not explain the difference.
It looks like a clone to me (with the FP changes being the difference).
Not sure if this still justifies the existence of r.mfilter.
Markus
On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Michael Barton <michael.barton@asu.edu> wrote:
Why do we have both r.mfilter and r.mfilter.fp?
I'm guessing that r.mfilter.fp works on floating point maps (or perhaps it
produces floating point maps?). A quick read did not explain the difference.It looks like a clone to me (with the FP changes being the difference).
Not sure if this still justifies the existence of r.mfilter.Markus
Or perhaps the current m.filter should be replaced by the code in m.filter.fp?
Michael