Tom,
>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:44:02 -0600
>From: Tom Rink <rink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: visad-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the above message, you wrote:
>
> >Is it better to return the following VisAD MathType:
> >
> > (FunctionType (Real): (time) -> (lat, lon), FunctionType:
> > (time) -> FunctionType (Real): (altitude) -> (pressure, temperature))
> >
> >which is a Tuple of two, separate Fields -- or this, equivalent, one:
> >
> > (FunctionType (Real): (time) -> (lat, lon,
> > FunctionType (Real): (altitude) -> (pressure, temperature)))
> >
> >which is a Field with a Tuple range comprising two Scalars and a Field?
> >
> >--Steve
>
> Hi Steve,
> In the latter case, lat and lon are not grouped into a tuple which wouldn't
> be desirable if they are to have a reference tuple type. For example,
> map coordinates.
Ok. But, then, which one of these is better?
(FunctionType (Real): (time) -> (lat, lon), FunctionType:
(time) -> FunctionType (Real): (altitude) -> (pressure, temperature))
or
(FunctionType: (time) -> ((lat, lon),
FunctionType (Real): (altitude) -> (pressure, temperature)))
The second one allows one to associate a CoordinateSystem with the (lat,
lon) RealTuple -- which can also be done in the first one.
--------
Steve Emmerson <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu>
