> Well, we don't have a need for it immediately, but it's your call.
If there aren't any problems with the basic case, I might then apply the
further extension, given that I might be diverted at any time.
> it would be nice if we either synchronized those ccdpack routines in kappa
> with the originals (and put them in libraries/) or renamed them
> completely so we no longer acknowledge they are meant to be the same...
That's a bigger job. I suppose I could compare the two sets and adjust
CCDPACK to use the latest code.
As previously discussed the various general routines need some
rationalising. KAPLIBS is quite big and hard to find what you want.
You might want to rebadge some, removing the internal 1 from the prefix,
but then you have to alter the invoking code, and there may be private
usage. One such reorganisation could collect the statistics routines
including the CCDPACK ones.
In terms of longer-term use of the legacy code in the Starlink Lifeboat,
it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a shakedown, and make it easier for
astronomers to use the facilities to write their own tools. Should we
be converting old Fortran to C?
Malcolm
|