[QUANTITY] Choosing default accuracy/units values (Was: Re: [QUANTITY] doc consistency
brian.thomas at gsfc.nasa.gov
Mon May 17 10:05:45 PDT 2004
On Monday 17 May 2004 11:57 am, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> The counter-argument is that <unitless> is really common, especially
> for integer and string data. What do other people prefer?
There are good "for" and "against" reasons one can offer for either
"unitless" or "no-units-defined" as a default, so I think this is more of
a religious issue than anything else. For me, I'm a "unitless" man.
Where this issue can be thought of more "rationally" is that the choice
of "unitless" or "no-units-defined" as a default should be consistent (ideally)
with the same choice for "accuracy" e.g. "ExactAccuracy" or "NoAccuracyDefined"
(the latter being the "lazy" case). Thus, a choice of "unitless" means "exact"
for the default cases as the same rationale applies (much integer/string data
are constant/definition type so that means its implicitly unitless/exact value).
Conversely, "many people are lazy about what the real units/accuracy is and just
leave it out" would have the consistent choice of "no-units-defined"/"no-accuracy-defined"
as the default choices.
* Dr. Brian Thomas
* Dept of Astronomy/University of Maryland-College Park
* Code 630.1/Goddard Space Flight Center-NASA
* fax: (301) 286-1775
* phone: (301) 286-6128 [GSFC]
(301) 405-2312 [UMD]
More information about the dm