[CF-metadata] Add new integer types to CF?

Dave Allured - NOAA Affiliate dave.allured at noaa.gov
Fri Sep 29 14:54:20 MDT 2017


Thanks for the reply.  I want to streamline the main proposal, not to
impede.  I see trouble in the extra sentences about type
interchangeability.  That is new wording that has no equivalent in the
current CF version.  I would simply like to protect the core proposal for
new data types, and have a separate conversation about interchangeability.

There seems to be general agreement about the basic wording for new integer
types.  If you agree, then please go ahead and start a change ticket for
just that part.  Then start a separate conversation for type
interchangeability, if you wish.  We can consider those as continuations of
the related parts of this conversation.

I think it is important that complex topics are broken into managable
pieces in community discussions such as CF.


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Charlie Zender <zender at uci.edu> wrote:

> Dave,
> I am fine with splitting the integer proposal into two pieces,
> one for new integer types, and one for workarounds to unsigned.
> Hopefully the new integer types are easier to address and will
> move more quickly through the process. Your suggested wording
> to incorporate the new integer types removes these three
> sentences from my suggested wording:
> "The convention explicitly distinguishes between signed and unsigned
> integer types only where necessary. Unless otherwise noted, int is
> interchangeable with unsigned int, int64, and unsigned int64 in this
> convention, including examples and appendices. Similarly short is
> interchangable with unsigned short, and byte with unsigned byte."
> Many said that my draft text, as a whole, was fine with them.
> You explained that CF 1.8 should not include these sentences because
> "This topic is confusing, lacking context, and I think unnecessary."
> I responded to this critique, on 9/21, opining that CF should
> explicitly clarify that/how interchanging int types is allowed.
> Those three sentences were intended to provide this clarity.
> Their "repeal without replacement" streamlines the text by increasing
> ambiguity on the topics they addressed.
> That is my comment. Thank you for considering it.
> Charlie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20170929/b175d393/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CF-metadata mailing list