[daip] Re: UVFLG/INFILE

[Jim Ulvestad]

Lincoln Greenhill wrote:
> 
> I do not agree with Jim.  AIPS is full of places where one
> can have leftover APARMs, BPARMS, CPARMS, etc that could
> adversely affect a task.  Users are responsible for using the
> right set of input parameters in other cases, why should they
> be any less vigilant in the case of UVFLG?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lincoln

The difference is that you have a change in the operation of
a long-standing task, where people have never had to worry
about the APARMs when using an INFILE.   On many other
tasks reading INFILEs (e.g., FITLD), once you specify an INFILE
from disk, I think everything else relating to the input parameters
is ignored.  One might argue that AIPS should be consistent
with regard to the way it treats tasks that use INFILEs.

That's my 2-cents worth, if it's worth that much.  But let's
just go with Leonia's change and see if anyone else notices.

jim


> 
> Lincoln J. Greenhill      Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> Radio & Geoastronomy Division, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
> Telephone:  1 617-495-7194             FAX:  1 617-495-7345
> Internet:  greenhill at cfa.harvard.edu   http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~lincoln