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
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk