[boost] Re: Physical Quantities revisited

From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-23 15:28:29

Andy Little wrote:

> Yep.
> (As an aside I hope we are discussing the same thing.
> ie physics, physical quantities. Physics is just about big enough to deserve
> its own personal entities. :-)
> Sorry.. but my view is that generalisation to boxes of apples or types of
> gasoline is really the road
> to squish.)
> 

I disagree. What physicists need is not that special.

> I see  a "physical quantity" type as a concrete
> type  like complex or BjarneStroustrup's Date
> class in C++3rdEd.
> 
> A major  contention I think is the basis of the  type.
> One view is that the dimension should be a type:
> 
> length mylength;
> 
> My view is that the unit should be the type:
> 
> length::metres mylength;
> 

I agree 100% (but I'm not so sure about the "length::").