[iaufwg] Final wording of 64-bit image support

[Dick Shaw]

I have to agree with Clive. However, it seems appropriate to me to put
cautionary notes such as this into the next version of the User Guide.

Cheers,
Dick

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:14:04 +0100 (BST)
  Clive Page <cgp at star.le.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Lucio Chiappetti wrote:
> 
>> I can just repeat what I proposed in my e-mail of 12 December 2005, i.e.
>> that one should/could add somewhere a "discouragement" statement.
> 
> I really don't think that this has any place in a standards document. There 
>can be a case for marking certain features as 'deprecated' or 'obsolescent' 
>if newer ways of achieving the same objective are better. For example the 
>Fortran Standard lists things like the arithmetic-IF as obsolescent while 
>leaving it in the standard for compatibility, for reasons we can all 
>appreciate.
> 
> The wording you propose risks being ignored as it is rather length, but if 
>programmers do read it, they may well dislike being talked-down to:
>For example:
> 
>>   Other data types are discouraged
>>   unless there are valid reasons to use them.
> 
> Does any progammer ever use data types unless he/she feels that there are 
>valid reasons for using them?  If they do, then I don't think that such a 
>sentence buried in the Standard will stop them.  One can also argue that when 
>the Standard includes such types then general purpose readers will *have* to 
>support them, and then there is no point in trying to reduce the incidence of 
>their usage to cases where they are "necessary".
> 
> So, sorry, but I disagree.
> 
> -- 
> Clive Page
> Dept of Physics & Astronomy,
> University of Leicester,    Tel +44 116 252 3551
> Leicester, LE1 7RH,  U.K.   Fax +44 116 252 3311

#---
Dr. Richard A. Shaw, Scientist
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
950 N. Cherry Avenue
Tucson, AZ  85719
USA
520-318-8398