[mmaimcal] forwarded message on subarrays from Jacob Baars

[Al Wootten]

Steven T. Myers writes:
 > 
 > I still see little benefit from distinguishing between the number that
 > the correlator can handle (6 proposed) and the software (8 proposed),
 > and as per my previous reply to Stephane's first mail on the subject I
 > prefer to set the latter two to 8 (my 4 "hard" versus 8 "soft" 
 > subarrays).  This will simplify things and will be one less complicated
 > distinction that the user needs to be aware of.  Unless there is a
 > compelling case that the correlator needs to have 6 instead of 8, I
 > strongly urge us to keep things as simple as possible.  (The cost of
 > another 4 first LOs is an example of a good reason to distinguish between
 > 4 and 8 there, but 4 isnt enough for everything...).
In fact, the correlator handles 16 now.  I think the software should be
able to handle what the correlator can handle, at least.

Al