From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 11:56:50
Phil Richards wrote:
> I gave up trying to progress with boost-ing it because I couldn't see
> a path of consensus to what was actually wanted. There seemed to be
> a desire for more flexibility, and I couldn't see the point :-( (One
> of the few things I took from a brief flirtation with eXtreme Programming
> was YAGNI and "do the least amount that will work".)
> In fact, all I've ever needed is physical4_system (mass, length,
> time, temperature), and never need to convert units because we
> always insist on everything being in SI.
Yes, this was a major issue.
Do we want a general dimensions library (without even predefining ANY
dimensions at all) that I claim would have extremely broad
applicability outside physics, or do we want a physical-dimensions-only
library that predefines a standard or basic collection of physical
I am strongly in favor of the former, I have also never understood why
the latter couldn't be built using the former anyway, so the library
could have two layers to it. The physicists could ignore the lower layer
completely, and I could ignore the upper one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk