[MITgcm-devel] this weeks share of stupid suggestions about netcdf

[Martin Losch]

Jean-Michel,

the missing value should be different for all variables, but I don't 
see the point of doing that. (I am sure you have some funny situation, 
where it is inevitably to have a missing value that is different for 
each variable (o: )

As for the "generic" subroutine, I haven't looked further into this, 
but it shouldn't be too difficult, should it?

On Feb 7, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Sorry not to answer earlier.
> I am not sure who received your response (sent on Feb. 3rd)
> Here is what I get in the header:
>> From: Martin Losch <mlosch at awi-bremerhaven.de>
>> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-devel] this weeks share of stupid suggestions 
>> about netcdf
>> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:04:49 +0100
>> To: Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu>
>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2)
> Did you sent it to the development list ?
>
> Otherwise, I agree with you. I think it would be nice to have this
> missing-value feature. And to be 100% clear, the default could be
> "no missing value", and when you specify a missing_value in data.mnc,
> then you know what you want, and you get it.
> The only question I have for you is: should it be defined one
> per variable ? one per file or per type of output ?
>
> And regarding the other part:
>> Ed, for all of this it would be convenient to have a "generic" 
>> subroutine, something like mnc_declare_recvar that calls 
>> mnc_cw_add_vname, mnc_cw_add_vattr_text etc. and also declare the 
>> missing value. When the variable is written and the missing_value is 
>> set, the missing value has to be filled in according to the mask. I 
>> still don't know the mnc-pkg well enough to be able to judge whether 
>> this is a "simple" thing to do. If you say that it shouldn't be 
>> difficult, I'll try to do that sometime soon. In that case, I would 
>> ask you to give me a list of where  mnc-record variable 
>> initialisations occur, e.g. ini_model_io, timeave_init_fixed, etc. 
>> (assuming that you have the best overview over this).
> I fully agree. I also think it would be nice to have a "minimal"
> type of mnc write (mainly for debugging) where you just need 1 call
> to write a field. And this goes in the same direction as your 
> suggestion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jean-Michel