From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-13 23:30:37
Phil Richards wrote:
> I think in this particular case you *don't* want dimensional analysis at
> all - you want the good old-fashioned "let's define the operators we need
> on the things we need" approach. This would be achieved simply by giving
> the value "unit" but no dimension - and what we would want is that the
> library would not allow implicit conversion between dimensionless things
> with different unit.
> (details omitted)
No, unfortunately not. Because I really do need to do the
multiplications and divisions and, as you observed, this is the key
feature of the dimensions library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk