Re: [boost] Review Wizard Report - April 2006

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-31 04:20:33

"Tom Brinkman" wrote

[...]

> If you would like us to make any modifications or additions to this
> report before we do that, please email Ron or Tom.

I'd like to make a correction on this

[...]

Hopefully the PQS review info below helps in the clarification...

> Physical Quantities System
> -------------
>   :Author: Andy Little
>   :Review Manager: Need Volunteer
>
>   :Download:
>            http://tinyurl.com/7m5l8
>
>   :Description:
>            PQS (Physical Quantities System) is used for modelling
> physical-quantities
>    in C++ programs. The advantages over using built-in types in the role
>    include: trapping errors in dimensional analysis, detailed semantic
>    specifications for reliable and repeatable conversions between units and
>    self-documentation of source code. PQS is based around the principles
> and
>    guidelines of the International System of Units (SI). The library
> predefines
>    a large number of quantities, physical and maths constants using a
> common
>    syntax. The library also includes (or will soon include) classes for
>    manipulating quantities algebraically, for example angles (radians,
>    steradians, degrees,minutes,seconds) and vectors, matrices and
> quaternions
>    for more advanced modelling of physical systems.
>
> Libraries under development
> ===========================

> Geometry Library - Author - Andy Little (?)

To clarify ...

My current plans are to develop a geometry library for/within the PQS library
described above, rather than as a standalone effort. ( I will try to get some
preliminary code for this into the next version of PQS (pqs_3_0_7), and
hopefully that will
help to clarify how/why/if a geometry library for Quantities (or possibly
arbitrary UDT's) needs to differ from a classical geometry library. In brief;
allowing quantities rather than assuming numeric types affects the interface and
adds a burden on the implementation. My guess is that mathematicians would,
quite reasonably, find that unacceptable.

regards
Andy Little