From: Rene Jager (renej_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-25 17:41:07
> On 2003-10-24, Deane Yang <deane_yang_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I can't disagree with that, but from listening to the physicists
>> 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
>> 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.
Although dimensionless, angle and solid angle are something special and
there should be some support for them; for example, making it optional to
treat them as additional base quantities.
With respect to SI they are refered to as "supplementary SI quantities"
(supplementary base units radian and steradian).
> change "spam(s)" to "phil" for email
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk