On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Tim Jenness wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Peter W. Draper wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Tim Jenness wrote:
> >
> > > This would seem to suggest that we should have the bad value definitions
> > > in a single place and that PRIMDAT should be that place. Would it be
> > > problematic if HDS started using primdat? (and the HDS routines to
> > > determine all that great stuff in the HDS datestamp file simply became
> > > part of primdat)?
> >
> > It has to be the other way around. PRIMDAT must mirror what HDS uses.
> >
>
> So HDS should install a cut down version of PRM_PAR itself for bad values
> (hds_par?) and PRM_PAR should then include that for bad value definitions?
Probably, by parsing the output from the hds_datestamp file (which PRIMDAT
could probably do for now). The only question I have is whether
unformatting these decimal strings to the right bit pattern is as reliable
as the hexadecimal scheme we have now. Must have done that for some good
reason.
Cheers,
Peter.
|