Chris, The point is, the Conventions themselves state that there is no standard. People are all the time trying to add meaning to variable names, but the standard actually states that the meaning is to reside in the attributes. The variable names are just keys for differentiating the variables. (I could name all my variables “vNNNNNNNNNN”, where N is a digit, and I would be completely valid according to the standard.) The long_name and standard_name attributes are the places where descriptors of the variable content are to be found.
So I’m raising a question. Is there actually anything other than sentiment (i.e., an actual rule) that anyone can point to that prevents someone from using “new” characters in their variable names? Grace and peace, Jim Visit us on Facebook Jim Biard Research Scholar Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC North Carolina State University NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801 e: [email protected] o: +1 828 271 4900 On Jan 15, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Chris Barker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:39 AM, jbiard <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we should use ease of mapping variable names to a programming > language as a reason for allowing (or not allowing) any particular character > in variable names. > > Why not? maybe not a compelling reason, but I can't imagine a compelling > reason to have more flexible naming conventions, either. > CF has, as I understood it, considered variable names as completely up to the > producer, relying on attributes to provide meaning. So, I can name a > temperature variable "fluffy_bunny" if I want to, and it is completely valid. > > valid yes, a good idea? probably not. > > Section 1.3 of the Conventions states, "No variable or dimension names are > standardized by this convention." > > so there are no standard variable names -- that's not the same as standards > for variable names.... > > Personally, I wish there were standards for variable names, it would make it > easier to code against -- but that cat's out of the bag. But this cat isn't: > the restiricitons have been there for a long time, so the question now is: > > what are the reasons for easing those restrictions? > > and > > what are the reasons for keeping those restrictions? > > we've given a few reasons for keeping them (maybe not all that compeling > toyou, but reasons none the less) -- what are the reasons for relaxing them, > other than "I like this naming convention that is currently not allowed" ? > > I'm not convinced that "fluffy-bunny" is any more readable or anything else > than "fluffy_bunny" > > -Chris > > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
