Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-02 20:51:50

"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 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.

I don't think that's a good excuse for code duplication. There are
ways to hide configurability so that it looks like you "can't mess
with it."

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at