You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
But I think that is really a mistake.
When we support the extended grid-mapping syntax, it will become possible for auxcoords to have a coord system, but this would not be the "coord-system of the cube".
So I think the cube coord-system "of a cube" should be that of its dim-coords only, or None.
For example, if the cube is on a projection grid, it will typically also have 2d "true" lats+lons as aux-coords.
If the dim-coords don't have a coord system (for some reason), the cube should not report that it is "on" a latlon grid, as that would be definitely wrong.
Currently, a cube cube will have a coord-system if any of its coords do.
It is the first found, looking at dim-coords first.
But I think that is really a mistake.
When we support the extended grid-mapping syntax, it will become possible for auxcoords to have a coord system, but this would not be the "coord-system of the cube".
So I think the cube coord-system "of a cube" should be that of its dim-coords only, or None.
For example, if the cube is on a projection grid, it will typically also have 2d "true" lats+lons as aux-coords.
If the dim-coords don't have a coord system (for some reason), the cube should not report that it is "on" a latlon grid, as that would be definitely wrong.
Relates: #3388
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: