RE: [boost] Controversy over angles in radians

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-19 05:10:44

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Matthias Schabel
| Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:43 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: Re: [boost] Controversy over angles in radians
|

Without wishing to add more fuel - when moderator Dave says "cool it!"

| from a practical standpoint being able to trap degree/radian mismatch errors
| is a desirable goal.

| As it stands now, radians do not appear in the dimensional analysis
| code, only in the implementation of the SI unit system.

Which leaves users free to chose a mathematical view that angles are always pure
numbers (with units of radians!),

or a physical (SI/cgs/...) view where they can be either degrees or radians and
may be subject to dimension checking.

The underlying design does seem to me to separate units and dimensions.

Users have options - which will need plenty of documenting and exampling.

I think we need to see examples of how this works in real-life before we do any
more arguing.  First we need to see Matthias Schabel's system working more
fully.

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]