Hi Masatoshi,
Thanks for your message. I'm glad to hear that this was all debated in Kyoto.
> The arguments contained in the current XMATCH specification was made
> based on discussion at CDS to guarantee extensibility of the XMATCH function.
> If you have serious difficulty on this format, and if you have much better
> format, please don not hesitate to propose it.
As I said in my previous email, my only immediate suggestion is that the order of the third and fourth parameters in the XMATCH function should be swapped - i.e. the mode number becomes the third, and the sigma value becomes the fourth. That seems a better first step towards an extensible XMATCH, where different sets of parameters are appropriate to different modes - so you'd have three mandatory parameters and then the 4th to Nth would be specific to the mode chosen.
cheers
Bob Received on 2005-07-25Z08:19:28