Re: [boost] [PQS] Length::m vs Length - which is better - examples?

From: Janek Kozicki (janek_listy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 19:23:25

Andy Little said:     (by the date of Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:14:57 +0100)

> 
> "Oleg Abrosimov" <beholder_at_[hidden]> wrote
> 
> > Moreover, I have a strong feeling that the solution with simple Length 
> > would be better. In particular, it'll simplify your code that uses PQS. 
> > You've said that PQS helps you to remember in what units a variable is. 
> > In a scheme with Length you simply have no need to remember it nor think 
> > about it anymore.
> > 
> > Of course, I can be completely wrong. If so, I would like to see a 
> > complete example were current scheme is beneficial. In C++, please.
> 
> Have you looked in the examples provided with pqs_3_1_0/pqs_3_1_1?
> 
> Some examples there showing the advantages of units are:
> 
> <libs/pqs/examples/conversion_factor.cpp>
> <libs/pqs/examples/capacitor_time_curve.cpp>
> <libs/pqs/examples/lab_example.cpp>
> <libs/pqs/examples/gravity.cpp>
> <libs/pqs/examples/fibonacci_optimise-timer.cpp>
> <libs.pqs/examples/noise_voltage_density.cpp.
> <libs/pqs/examples/clcpp_response.cpp>

Hi Andy, this is not a good reply to well posed question.

You should rather pick only one of those examples, copy/paste a (small)
fragment of it, and write reasoning why length::m makes sense. It's even
possible that while writing this, you will discover yourself that it doesn't
make sense :)

I'm sorry about being harsh ... but - you know small piece of code with
good comments that are ,,on topic'' of length::m is thousands better
than tons of examples without explanation...

-- 
Janek Kozicki                                                         |