Charlie, 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. --Dave On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Charlie Zender <zen...@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 >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
