NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
All, While I agree with most of what is said in this digest, I would take small issue with this one statement by Harvey Davies: > Regarding valid_range. The generic conventions clearly state that > the type must match that of the variable. I disagree with "clearly". They refer to "the type" of the variable, when a packed variable clearly has two types, often referred to as "internal" and "external", but more obviously termed "unpacked" and "packed". The statement referred to would have been clear, even to a dolt such as myself, if one of those four words had been inserted between "the" and "type". Thus, as a person who wrote many datasets that have a valid_range matching the unpacked type of the variable, I resent being told my data files are "erroneous" or "non-standard". The standard, due to its vagueness, was adhered to, despite my data files being in apparent contradiction to the author's intentions. In the future, I will be using "unpacked_valid_range" and "valid_range", as I did with my NCEP_DOE AMIP II Reanalysis 2 files. I'm sorry if my older files broke some software, but my software never had the slightest problem filtering with "missing_value" rather than valid_range. I've never understood the insistence that this is not possible or too difficult, with packed data or unpacked data (threshold comparisons work, and are simplicity itself to code up). -Hoop
netcdfgroup archives: