[fitsbits] 64-bit integer comments

[Mike Nolan]

> On Wednesday 11 May 2005 21:43, William Pence wrote:
> > Here are some comments on several aspects of the 64-bit integer discussion:
> >
> > 1) On the suggestion to only add support for 64-bit integers in binary
> > tables, and not in primary arrays:
> 
 Preben Grosbol replied:
> I still don't see a convincing argument for adding BITPIX=64.  That it
> may be simple  to add it in interface libraries is not a reason for doing
...
> For table columns, the time stamp argument is convincing.  Although

Once something is allowed anywhere as a data type, it would be quite
confusing to not allow it everywhere, violating the "principle of least
astonishment" as some would say. I agree that pointers can be kept as a
separate case if there is a good reason. Also, once it works in some
part of the software, it's almost certainly harder to make it *not*
work everywhere.


The standard does do this other places (It's not legal to specify an
Fw.d TDISP for double precision data, so I have to see my JD in
exponential notation), but it's not a good idea.


-Mike

---------------------------
Mike Nolan <nolan at naic.edu>
+1 787 878 2612x334  Fax: +1 787 878 1861
Arecibo Observatory / Cornell University
HC03 Box 53995, Arecibo, PR 00612  USA