|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[fitsbits] FITS Bintable proposals
I concur with Bill's changes, but want to provide one clarification.
Actually, I was not thinking about unsigned 32-bit integers in the P columns (I suppose Bill's assuming this says something about issues I am associated with :-), but whether these P columns shouldn't really contain 64 bit integers (or, if you like, pairs of 32 bit integers). I realize that that would immediately cause trouble with certain existing files, so it might be more prudent to define 'Q' as the 64-bit equivalent of 'P'. Aside from that, I would, of course, be all in favor of using unsigned integers in the 'P' format, especially since the negative values are outlawed, as Bill points out. - Arnold William Pence wrote: The following comments about the FITS binary table proposals from Arnold Rots and Preben Grosbol may be of general interest, so I'm reposting this here to the wider FITSBITS audience. I have updated the draft proposals, available from http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/bintable_proposals.html with the changes that are discussed here. -Bill Pence --------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold Rots wrote: ... Re-reading all of this made me realize that, in retrospect, I am uncomfortable with the 32 bit signed restriction. Here we start worrying about 64 bit integers but we restrict the size of the heap to 2 GB through the second half of the P fields. But I should not reopen the debate :-) Some reasons for restricting the array length and offset to signed integers a - there is no precedent in FITS for using unsigned 32-bit integers - use of unsigned integers is problematic in some languages like Fortran - as far as I'm aware, the current software implementations of the heap (e.g. CFITSIO) interpret these values as signed integers I share your discomfort about this, however, and think that perhaps in the future we could reverse this decision and redefine these to be unsigned integers. (This is possible because doing so would not invalidate any existing FITS files and thus would not violate the "once FITS, always FITS" rule). We need more time to evaluate all the implications before making this decision, so for now I think it is best to restrict these fields to be signed integers, but leave the door open for a change in the future. (see also Preben's related comment, below) ... -- __________________________________________________ __________________ Dr. William Pence NASA/GSFC Code 662 HEASARC +1-301-286-4599 (voice) Greenbelt MD 20771 +1-301-286-1684 (fax) _______________________________________________ fitsbits mailing list http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/fitsbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold H. Rots Chandra X-ray Science Center Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory tel: +1 617 496 7701 60 Garden Street, MS 67 fax: +1 617 495 7356 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~arots/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FITS long integer support (was [fitsbits] ADASS FITS BoFon Sunday) | William Pence | FITS | 6 | October 22nd 04 08:23 PM |
[fitsbits] Comment Period on 2 FITS Proposals | William Pence | FITS | 0 | October 21st 04 09:56 PM |
[fitsbits] FITS long integer support | Steve Allen | FITS | 0 | October 21st 04 06:22 PM |
[fitsbits] Start of the FITS MIME type Public Comment Period | William Pence | FITS | 8 | June 17th 04 06:08 AM |
[fitsbits] Happy Birthday, FITS! | Don Wells | FITS | 0 | March 28th 04 01:58 PM |