From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-22 14:42:10
I believe that a properly designed core dimensions/units library would
allow for both designs to coexist as higher level libraries.
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Andy Little
> | Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 2:22 PM
> | To: boost_at_[hidden]
> | Subject: [boost] Re: Physical Quantities revisited
> | "Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | > I have only expressed a view on one fundamental premise - that all values
> | are
> | > held internally as SI units - but I may be wrong in this view.
> | Within SI units there are various units within 1 dimension.
> | ie length has units from nanometres to kilometres (and beyond).
> I (and others) also expressed the prejudice that all are kept as their base
> unit, now that 'everyone' is using at least 64-bit doubles in their calculations
> (which is enough to keep everyone except the astronomers in the exponent range.
> And the significand precision available (15-ish decimal digits) is ample for all
> physical measurements.
> Obviously 'everyone' excludes those like toaster designers who must struggle
> with much smaller (if any) floating point, ranges and precision. For them, your
> solution is probably best, but for a more general purpose library like Boost, it
> may not be preferred.
> Hopefully we can find a solution which caters for both.
> Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK
> +44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk