[AstroPy] Draft specification for PyFITS functional interface
erwin at iac.es
Wed Mar 30 16:14:42 CST 2005
At 3:08 PM -0500 3/30/05, <laidler at stsci.edu> wrote:
>I agree with Peter - to my mind, one of the strengths of
>Python is that it supports both functional and object-oriented
>programming, so that it's easy and painless to switch back and
>forth or mix them as the need arises. In an interactive
>session, I might be very likely to use the functional routines
>as long as things are going as I expect, and then want to
>switch to the OO ones for cases where things are going wrong
>and I need more direct control of the file's innards.
Well, obviously, I agree with this ;-)
It's actually what I was going to add, but you beat me to it -- one
of the things that makes Python so useful is its flexibility and *lack*
of forced adherence to a particular programming style. Complaints
that it would be "polluting" the pyfits interface make no sense to me,
I'm afraid. (My personal perspective is that it would make pyfits
*more useful* and easier to start using; I've been slightly leery of
digging into pyfits because an object-oriented approach seems
slightly excessive for the things I usually want to do with FITS files.)
Many of the Python standard libraries are similarly "unclean", and
more useful because of it.
As for the ".fits" issue -- I'd find it somewhat convenient to be
able to use that syntax, but it's not a big issue for me. So if you're
looking for votes on:
At 3:42 PM -0500 3/30/05, Perry Greenfield wrote:
>Which is worse:
>oo-only pyfits and iraf/cfitsio-convention-contaminated xxxfits?
>oo+functional pyfits and iraf/cfitsio-convention-contaminated xxxfits?
then my votes is that the *first* in that list is worse...
Peter Erwin Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias
erwin at iac.es C/ Via Lactea s/n
tel. +34 922 605 238 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
fax +34 922 605 210 http://www.iac.es/galeria/erwin
More information about the AstroPy