On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Malcolm J. Currie wrote:
> Now that KAPLIBS does have a public API, I'd side with David and think
> that's the obvious place for it rather than compromising NDF. Rodney
> would not be pleased!
I chose NDF because:
1. It seemed to be the obvious place to me since .MORE.FITS is a de
facto standard even if it is not actually part of the standard.
It's now in common usage. (partly because whilst HDS does allow
for typed keyword/value pairs there is no easy way to include the
descriptive comment and unit that the FITS header string gives you)
2. kaplibs is a bit of a hodge podge and has far more dependencies
than NDF. Writing a perl wrapper to this routine is easy if it's
in NDF. I'd be happier with ndfGtfts in KAPLIBS if the NDF
bits of kaplibs were spun off. I also don't really like the "1"
in all the method names and think we should start using "kpg"
rather than "kpg1".
What routines are in KAPLIBS that are doing the job of NDF helper
routines?
I'm clearly not going to win this one though...
--
Tim Jenness
JAC software
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj
|