[boost] Re: Dimensional Analysis

From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-31 14:40:45

Phil Richards wrote:
> The point is we don't need anybody to take the strain because their
> isn't any.  Unit conversion and/or unit enforcement just isn't done.
> Anywhere.  At all.  Ever.
> 
> We just want dimensionality checking on what, in some cases, is quite
> horribly complex calculations.  (And I'm really hoping the "auto" type
> deduction extension gets added into the new standard to make our
> temporaries much easier to write!)

I want to refrain from participating in the discussion, since I have not 
worked on this as intensively as you and Andy. But perhaps it would be 
helpful for everyone, if you remind us what you are using your 
dimensions library for. Are you also doing physical dimensions (but 
always using the same units for each dimension) or is it something else?

(For what it's worth, despite whatever opinions I have expressed in 
earlier discussions, I support the serious consideration and acceptance 
of ANY dimensions or units library, whether it meets my personal needs 
or not. It is long overdue. Unfortunately, people like me have 
contributed to the general paralysis. I hope that someone who has 
developed such a library would shrug off all the criticisms and just 
push ahead with submitting it, even if it does not meet everyone's 
needs. I am hopeful that once such a library is accepted into boost and 
used by more people, there will be more impetus towards ongoing 
improvements and enhancements towards a library more suited towards my 
own needs.)