[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard (2)

[LC's NoSpam Newsreading account]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Francois Ochsenbein wrote:

> ask the same question before. I don't think it's wise to try to allow
> heap offset to be larger than 2**31 -- if the offset is a signed integer,
> then the limitation of the heap offset should be 2**31. If more is wished,
> then move to 64-bit integers. I'm sure the gain in space is minimal, 

And now that we have P and Q pointers, if one needs, wants and can go 
beyond 2**31, one has just to use Q.

I thought this issue was settled long ago.

Lucio Chiappetti

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nospam at mi.iasf.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.