From: Dan W. (danw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-02 17:00:06
> Amen. And I think this applies to 90% of the potential users of
> a quantities library. What is widely needed is an abstract quantities
> library, with NO pre-defined units or dimensions. This, in my view,
> is a much more important library than the physical dimensions library,
> which serves a much narrower need.
I still think that a physical quantities library is *very* important.
Maybe what I would like best would be Andy Little's library just for
physical quantities, and Matthias Shabel's solution, without predefined
physical dimensions and units, for the more common needs, and for the
two to be inter-operable. I'll tell you why: for physical quantities I
like Andy Little's rigor; --I don't even want to be able to mess with it
to add a "thoughts-per-eye-blink" dimension. Physical quantities should
be physical quantities. And if I do need thoughs/eye-blink I want this
to be very obviously under a different mind-space. And yet, if I need
thoughts per eye-blink per mili-Henry, I'd like to be able to glancingly
reference the physical quantities library...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk