From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-16 23:07:55
"Eric Lemings" <lemings_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andy Little
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:46 AM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Units library preview
>> Hi Eric,
>> I'm not quite sure which way to take this. Does this mean
>> that you consider the Quan UI unsatisfactory and beyond repair?
> Well I'll put it this way. Let's say you have two library interface
> designs. The first design, A, is the hypothetically perfect library
> interface. The second design, B, is a tangible, real, albeit less
> than perfect design. The goal of course is to get B as close as
> possible to A. Now would it be easier to hack away at B or start
> from scratch with a new design called C? I decided to take the
> latter approach.
> Compare the library interface of Quan to my proposed design. I
> would be interested to know what you think.
I need more docs and at least to be able to run the code to form an opinion.
Having an alternative view to Quan is healthy so I don't have a problem with it,
but there is not enough detail there yet for me to get a good idea of where the
proposed Boost.Units library is going.
As far as the impled criticism (presumably) of Quan is concerned:
"The interface is probably quite different from anything
previously seen but hopefully it is more intuitive, flexible,
That's quite a general criticism, but obviously there is not enough detail
there either for me to be able to respond to it in any meaningful way.
Quan is fairly close now to being a suitable candidate for another boost review.
I am quite happy to have Quan and Boost.Units reviewed together, but OTOH as
boost has been waiting for a library of this kind for at least 5 years, then we
need to press on and not wait until Boost.Units is in a reviewable state.
Obviously you have problems with Quan, else presumably you wouldnt have started
work on an alternative.
If there are fundamental problems with Quan then
obviously I would be interested to know what they are, rather than having them
brought up in a review... Of course as author of a rival library, then maybe
that puts you in a difficult position?
>> Is the structure of a unit / conversion factor based on that
>> in quan?. It certainly looks very similar.
> Yes, same approach. (Only solution to the problem that has been
> devised AFAIK.)
OK so we can assume that Quan seems to have got at least one thing basically
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk