RE: [boost] Re: physical units library

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-19 18:16:59

vladimir josef sykora wrote:
> > Which is what is happening intuitively IMHO.  I think the idea of
> > pre-defining cm and ALSO not polluting the global namespace with it
> > (si::abbreviation::cm) unless the client wants to is a nice 
> > touch.  I do agree that compile-time structs are probably best and 
> > done via MPL strikes me as the right way to go.
> 
> We were tempted to use boost::mpl::vector<>  as the unit-typelist, 
> and then use boost::mpl::at<> for accessing the members, but we 
> decided not to for portability reasons (specially for Borland). The 
> shock came afterwards when we realised that the ice(s) malfuntion on 
> Borland and the type safety was gone - because of the unit's orders 
> (ice) were not calculated correctly (we're still looking for a 
> workaround -help!-). Anyway, it won't be difficult to switch to 
> boost::mpl::vector<> to achieve cleaner code.

The version of MPL that came out with 1.29 release, and in particular
'vector' and 'at' components, does work with Borland, correctly ;). (At
least all the corresponding tests pass).

Aleksey