[AstroPy] Re: functional interface for PyFITS?

Perry Greenfield perry at stsci.edu
Mon Mar 28 10:24:00 CST 2005

On Mar 23, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nor wrote:

> Hi Perry,
> 	I do agree that it *looks* as simple. The problem though is that many 
> IRAF tasks use the [2] and when you write Pyraf scripts you end up 
> going back and forth from the two notation which has the very negative 
> consequence of requiring more coding, to parse the filename, removal 
> of [] etc..., and ends up costing a lot of time and introduce many 
> bugs.
> 	I would encourage you to at least allow for both to be implemented, 
> maybe using different functions. Otherwise, as has been done in the 
> past, people will just write their own wrappers to your high level 
> functions to pyfits. What was the point of starting this discussion in 
> the first place then? pyfits is fine the way it is... :-)
> 		n

How about allowing a layered module on top of pyfits that permits this 
convention? This way the purists can use pyfits and those that wish to 
allow this usage can use the layered module.

Any suggestions for a name of such a module?


More information about the AstroPy mailing list