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?
>
On reflection, it's absolutely ridiculous that PRM should depend on HDS
since that implies that every application or software package that uses
PRM has to be shipped with HDS !!! It makes it even harder to disentangle
things. The sane thing to do is for PRM to define badness and then have
HDS use that. Can that work?
--
Tim Jenness
JAC software
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
|