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
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 +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk