From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-24 11:08:36
On 2003-10-24, Deane Yang <deane_yang_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I can't disagree with that, but from listening to the physicists explain
> their needs, I haven't heard anything that the physicists want that
> isn't also wanted by many of us non-physicists, except the desire to
> hardwire the definition of dimensions to actual physical dimensions. So
> all I am trying to express is the desire not to have the core library
> somehow tied to physical dimensions only.
Why not start with what we know is wanted, and develop from that?
There is clearly a desire for a library which supports
physical dimensions - if at a later point other things are required,
then a bit of refactoring will allow the physical dimension
library to built on the more generic core (if it ever exists).
Much like boost::shared_ptr may, or may not, ever build on a
policy based smart pointer.
> Angles are indeed difficult to fit within the framework of a
> dimensions/units library. The basic problem is that an angle is really a
> unitless ratio. [...]
Ahem. Angles have *lots* of units - degrees, radians, gradians ...
they don't, however, have any "dimensionality".
It is an important, if pedantic, distinction.
-- change "spam(s)" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk