Re: file naming

[<jbush@pucp.edu.pe>]

arne

i think the *.fit, *.fts is an absolute must.  a number of good programs
require the identification . .  to go and add the extension to 80 or more
files makes it very undesirable, to see the least that it is very time
consuming

jamie


On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:

> As I mentioned earlier, the other method of keeping 8x3
> but making files more unique is to do away with the
> .fit/.fts extension and use those extra 3 characters.
> Then you could have files more like what I personally
> use (and like), such as
>     sjjjjft.xxx
>     s = site
>     jjjj = last 4 digits of the Julian Date
>     f = filter name (bvri)
>     t = image type (r=raw, p=processed, b=bias,
>          d=dark, f=flat)
>     xxx = sequence number, starting at 000
> Note this format even has a spare digit for future
> expansion.  However, it does not uniquely identify
> the file as fits, and I bet some processing programs
> would barf at numeric extensions.  (it works fine
> with iraf, however, which is why I can get away with it.)
>   So the question to the list is:  are there any
> strong objections to either proposed method:
>   (1) .fit/.fts extension with site-named directories
>   (2) sequence number extension, no directories needed
> Note that, again, this file-naming format is primarily for
> CD standarization.  One could copy the files from CD and add
> a .fits extension for hard disk use.
> Arne
>