Hi all, I'm still re-assimilating what went on here, but it occurs to me that allowing data type equivalence (rather than equality) is problematic:
* The `missing_value` and `_FillValue` (and the `valid_*` attributes) must be of the same data type as the data to which they apply, so if they these attributes are inherited, then the bounds must be of the same data type. * If the bounds are strings and the coordinates chars, then the bounds will _not_ have the extra dimension, as is currently required: "_A boundary variable will have one more dimension than its associated coordinate or auxiliary coordinate variable._". (This is easily dealt with via a caveat, of course.) * Although most software does support type casting, it is not always done in the same way (for example, in Python the default type casting rules of numpy have recently changed), and even if it is done as expected, the recast numbers may produce undesired results in ways that may be hard to detect. Thanks, David -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/265*issuecomment-939966466__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!hnUIyIO55kD9aTWBt8vQMiLX4Cc2aQHed6RzK22VzsJrxhE9viK8P6udDYy8tmspEpQy0b7NHUE$ 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].
