The definition of "integer types" could perhaps be worked into the first
sentence, so as to avoid repeating the list of 8 types:
> The netCDF external data types are supported: 8 integer types (**`byte`**,
> **`unsigned byte`**, **`short`**, **`unsigned short`**, **`int`**,
> **`unsigned int`**, **`int64`**, or **`unsigned int64`**), 2 floating point
> types (**`float`**, **`double`**), and two character types (**`string`**,
> **`char`**).
Is "supported" (taken from the existing convention text) the right word here?
Perhaps it would be better to say "Data variables must be assigned one of the
following NetCDF external data types: ..". NetCDF also allows user defined data
types -- but I don't think we want to allow these in CF at this point (just
because no use case has been proposed so far).
The last sentence of the first paragraph ("It is possible to treat the byte
type as unsigned by using the NUG convention of indicating the unsigned range
using the valid_min, valid_max, or valid_range attributes.") looks mis-leading
to me. As we now have two explicit byte data types, I suggest we remove this.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/243#issuecomment-593283635
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
[email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the
UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list.
To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to
[email protected].
