[boost] Re: Re: new compile-time dimensional analysis and unitlibrary

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-15 15:17:11

"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:6.0.0.22.0.20031211011744.027e1330_at_pcp.softhome.net...
> First I would like to apologize for having started this debate over
radians
> and degrees,

Please dont apologise ... It needs to be sorted out.

[snip]

> In math there are dimension-less units routinely.

I think this is the problem, angles are a Mathematical phenomena.
 Physics uses them but they arent a physical phenomenon.
Angle conversions would be very useful on their own (think Microsoft Excel)
Any chance you Mathematicians could sort it out. :-)

[snip]

>The base of imaginary
> numbers, as well as the bases of hyperimaginary numbers, for instance. 1
> and 1j are both dimension-less, and yet they are distinct 'units'.  In a
> financial application, taking an even root of a negative number may be
> meaningles, yet in a physics context it may be meaningful.

Oops.... Vectors will be the next 'issue'    :-)

>  Degrees and
> Radians are in the scope of math, not of physical units,

Aah there it is :-)

regards
Andy Little