[fitsbits] 64-bit integers

[Rob Seaman]

Arnold Rots suggests:

> If we are considering tinkering with the data types, at last, should
> we consider including old unfinished business and add the unsigned
> integers as well?  Such as:
> 
>  1  YES - I think 64-bit integers should be added to FITS, but not
>           unsigned integers
>  2  NO  - I do not think 64-bit integers should be added to FITS, at
>           least not at this time, nor should unsigned integers.
>  3  UNDECIDED - I have not yet made up my mind
>  4  NO OPINION - I don't care one way or the other
>  5  YES - I think 64-bit integers should be added to FITS, as should
>           unsigned integers
>  6  NO  - I do not think 64-bit integers should be added to FITS, at
>           least not at this time, but unsigned integers should.

We're neglecting folks who may be undecided about one proposal, but have
no opinion about the other :-)  There are 16 different combinations of
opinions when both the 64 bit and unsigned integer questions are considered.
The 4x4 decision matrix is guaranteed to be sparsely populated - there may
not even be 16 replies total.

Perhaps this would be a better poll to conduct at the upcoming FITS BOF?
At the very least, there are unlikely to be very many folks with no opinion
in attendance :-)

It also isn't clear (to me, at least) precisely what proposals are being
discussed.  It's hard to have an opinion without at least a straw proposal.

Rob Seaman