Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Review deadline

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 04:58:21

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
|  [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Leland Brown
|  Sent: 09 June 2006 04:48
|  To: boost_at_[hidden]
|  Subject: Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Review deadline

|   (And BTW, it did find several bugs in my 
|  computations by flagging dimensions problems!)

Can you elaborate a little on the value of using a dimensional analysis by
sharing some of these with us?

We are all assuming that there is a correctness payoff (some think a BIG
payoff) for using a system like yours/PQS/...  but it is useful to have some
evidence that our instinct is correct.  (This ignores the convenience of
handling units, of course).

The potential users of a 'units/quantity' feature are very much more
numerous than any uber-super-pointer IMO.  In fact I would describe it as a
'killer application'.  (I'd also like to throw in optional estimates of
uncertainty to further muddy the water).

So I am still very keen for the collective neurons of Boost (especially
those with Meta/Template minds) to solve it, if this is possible - I am
coming to fear that the language may not really make it as practicable as I
thought.

Paul

PS If only the MKS people had known the grief they would cause by making the
kilogram the fundamental mass unit...  As a schoolboy, I thought it a little
odd, but its full horror never crossed my mind.
Some of the perpetrators must be still alive - I wonder if they are aware of
what they have done?

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