[AstroPy] Draft specification for PyFITS functional interface
Perry Greenfield
perry at stsci.edu
Wed Mar 30 15:42:47 EST 2005
On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:07 PM, Nor wrote:
> Keeping the two separated would be my preference as well. It would
> leave pyfits unpolluted by the "quick and dirty" high level interface
> (qpyfits? :-) )
>
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Paul Barrett wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if these convenience functions aren't better off in a
>> separate python module that imports pyfits. This approach would keep
>> the pyfits interface simple and objected-oriented, and would signal
>> that the procedural interface is being used. Command line versions
>> of these convenience functions could also exist, so that users could
>> easily extract information from a FITS file.
>>
>>
These are good points, the problem then that has to be faced is that a
choice has to be made regarding filename syntax since I don't think
having 3 separate modules is sensible (to include or not include
handling of cases like input.fits[1]). My read is that if there are
only two modules, it must be included. What say those that despise this
usage? Which is worse:
oo-only pyfits and iraf/cfitsio-convention-contaminated xxxfits?
oo+functional pyfits and iraf/cfitsio-convention-contaminated xxxfits?
As for names, hmmm...
ifits
pifits
qfits
shufits er...
I think I find qpyfits getting too long.
Also, the interactive/functional version I think should either not
expose the pyfits.open function or it should rename it (fitsopen?) so
that from xxxfits import * may be used by those that wish to.
Comments?
More information about the AstroPy
mailing list