From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-16 20:24:34
Matthias Schabel <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > That seems pointless
> > Ugly
> > Ugly
> > Unhelpful
> You're long on fruitless criticism and notably short on constructive
> comments and/or suggestions. I'm sure the group would be delighted
> to be enlightened by your brilliant resolution of this conundrum.
My solution is to not make radians a unit. Your solutions are ugly
and unnatural. Please be more constructive.
> > I have no problems with making degrees a unit. Those shouldn't be
> > mixed with anything else without conversions. But radians are a
> > different matter. If I take arctan(1.0), I expect a number, not
> > something with units.
> That's purely by convention.
You are proposing a different convention. That is going to surprise
and annoy a lot of people, including the people working on the Mars
> Trig functions use and return radians because that is the most
> efficient way of implementing the underlying algorithms. What do
> you expect the function getSatelliteRollAngle() to return? If it
> just returns a number, there's no way of knowing without looking
> through the documentation, whereas a return type of radians (or
> degrees) is unambiguous and forestalls potential programming errors.
> This way the error will be caught at compile-time. Do it your way
> and it may be caught when the Mars Lander impacts the surface at 6
You have a very narrow view of how radians are used. They are not
just fed to trig functions. They are used as regular numbers all the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk