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 <zender at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20170929/b175d393/attachment.html>
Received on Fri Sep 29 2017 - 14:54:20 BST
