I'll take care of it. Evan On Sat 18 Jan 2014 05:25:11 AM EST, MAISONOBE Luc wrote: > Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil> a écrit : > >> My thought is that if C_2,0 is missing, that is a big problem and >> should result in an error, (as it does now) but if C_1,0 is missing, >> that is not a problem because we know C_1,0 is identically 0. Basically >> I think it should throw and exception when it is missing "real" data, >> but not when it is missing data that we know at compile time. Does this >> make sense? > > Ah, yes, you are right, sorry for the misunderstanding. > I think it is worth registering it as a bug in the forge and fix it. > Could you take care of that? > > best regards, > Luc > >> >> Regards, >> Evan >> >> On Fri 17 Jan 2014 02:17:04 PM EST, MAISONOBE Luc wrote: >>> Evan Ward <evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil> a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>> Hi Evan, >>> >>>> >>>> I was trying to parse the gravity field file for EGM2008 from [1], >>>> which >>>> does not specify the coefficients for degree 0 and 1. Current behavior >>>> is to initialize to NaN and then throw an exception if they are not >>>> specified. Since these coefficients are always zero I propose we >>>> initialize them to 0 instead of NaN in the GravityFieldReaders. >>>> What are >>>> your thoughts? This will be a small change in behavior without a >>>> change >>>> in the API. >>> >>> Doesn't the "missingCoefficientsAllowed" boolean parameter to the >>> EGMFormatReader precisely do that? >>> >>> Luc >>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Evan Ward >>>> >>>> [1] http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/ICGEM/modelstab.html >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature