Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
#1046 closed enhancement (fixed)
should FITS HISTORY values be on value or comment?
| Reported by: | eugene | Owned by: | Paul Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | high | Milestone: | |
| Component: | types | Version: | unspecified |
| Severity: | minor | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
It seems the psFitsReadHeader function is putting the header field associated with the COMMENT and HISTORY keys into the psMetadataItem comment element rather that the data.V element. It is not obvious this is the correct choice: the user then needs to treat those fields even more specially than currently (currently, they are treated as MULTI since they are likely duplicated). The user has to know to look for the associated value in the comment field not the data field. Is this sensible? Or should the entry be considered a value?
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
I agree these should be specified in the "data.str" of the psMetadataItem, rather than the comment, and just treated specially by psFits{Read,Write}Header.
Note that this is different from the behaviour of cfitsio, which calls the value "comments".
I've fixed this in psLib, checked in to CVS head.