Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Physical Quantities System review (May 31through June 9)

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-05 09:19:51

  -----Original Message-----
|  From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
|  [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Sebastian Redl
|  Sent: 03 June 2006 22:33
|  To: boost_at_[hidden]
|  Subject: Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Physical Quantities 
|  System review (May 31through June 9)
|  
|  Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
|  
|  >1. The name "pqs" should be changed to
|  >   something a little bit more descriptive.
|  >
|  >   "unit" feels quite handy.
|  >  
|  >
|  "Unit" in programming is closely associated with the 
|  technique of unit testing,

Most end users, mainly scientists, using it will not have heard of UNIT
testing - just testing
- and they may not do much of that ;-(

| and a library of that name would probably be confused with 
|  Boost.Test. (See existing libraries like CppUnit.)

Boost.Units is NOT going to be confused with Boost.Test, IMO.  

(And Andy cunningly manages to handle non-SI units, vital for the once
Imperial [ now renamed Colonial? ;-) ] units still beloved by the US, so
putting SI in the title won't do at all).

|  I like PQS.

I absolutely HATE it!  Does conjure up anything except acute acronymitis ;-)

(I also hate the wholey non-descriptive t1_quantity - surely we can do
better than that?)

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]