Re: Dropping octave's native image format

[Søren Hauberg]

On Jul 13, 2013, at 3:24 AM, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
> This is what I figured by reading the source of imread. As far as can
> see, this format is completely undocumented, and we don't even have a
> function to write into it. Should we remove this? I'm guessing that
> even if we removed it, no one would notice (except for when calling
> image() without arguments since it loads default.img, the only example
> I have of an image in this format).

This is from back before Octave had 'imread' and 'imwrite'. Then we had the 
functions 'loadimage' and 'saveimage' .

Is there any maintenance burden in supporting this old format? I guess it is 
quite unused, but if it doesn't hurt to keep supporting it, then I don't see a 
reason to remove it. If it makes it harder to evolve the code to support this, 
then I think it's fine to drop it.

Søren