Re: [boost] [review] pqs

From: Martin Bonner (martin.bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-08 04:17:23

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andy Little Sent:
08 June 2006 08:32 To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] [review] pqs

>> "Deane Yang" wrote
>> Carlo Wood wrote:
>>>  English: meter per second
>>> Dutch: meter per seconde
>>> French: mtres par seconde
>>> German: meter pro sekunde
>>> Spanish: metro por segundo
>>> 
>>> I think that 'per' is as much english as 'divided by'.
>>> People who know english won't be confused by it.
>>> 
>> 
>> I also vote for "per".
> 
> in this case, as typedefs for declaring a quantity of a particular
> type , you 
> end up with
> 
> velocity:: m_per_s
> velocity:: mi_per_h
> acceleration::m_per_s2;
> reciprocal_time::per_s;
> reciprocal_mass::per_kg;
> mass_flow::kg_per_s;

This is *MUCH* easier to read than _div_.
> 
> It might even be possible to abbreviate it and keep the sense:
> 
> velocity:: m_p_s
> velocity:: mi_p_h
> acceleration::m_p_s2;
> reciprocal_time::p_s;
> reciprocal_mass::p_kg;
> mass_flow::kg_p_s;

But this is not.  It gets close to idiomatic forms like mph (but not all
that close), and is really difficult to read for m/s.

Incidentally, none of the above units has a natural "named" unit (with
the possible exception of reciprocal_time::Hz), so this does actually
matter.

-- 
Martin Bonner
Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]
Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ,
ENGLAND Tel: [phone]