Re: [boost] Interest in dimension/unit-checking library?

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-23 10:15:17

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matt Calabrese
| Sent: 21 October 2005 18:53
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in dimension/unit-checking library?
| 
| On 10/21/05, Deane Yang <deane_yang_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| 
| > But wouldn't it make sense to develop a core 
| dimensions/units library
| > without any predefined dimensions in it and develop the SI 
| quantities
| > library as a layer above that?
| 
| 
| That's exactly what my library is. It's a general physical quantities
| library with SI just also provided as a set of classifications and units
| coupled with the library.

I've read this discussion with renewed interest.

This sounds like a good basis to work on, potentially meeting all the
requirements from the feet-on-the-ground-SI group (almost certainly by far
the largest) but not excluding the head-in-the-astronomicals group (whose
distances overflow SI units!), nor excluding the monetarily-important
finance groups, not to mention the ones we have yet to conceive.  

I worry that the compile times and complexity will outstrip both hardware
and compilers, but the only way to find out is to try it.  So I would
encourage Matt to continue his efforts in this direction.

Paul

PS My gut instinct is to enforce explicit conversions - mainly as a matter
of documenting intent, but I am just about persuaded that implicit can be
OK, provided it is loseless.
If we can have a way of highlighting when implicit conversion takes place,
that could make everyone happier.

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
Phone and SMS text [phone], Mobile and SMS text [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com