Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-29 15:44:15

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Andy Little wrote:
>> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> Andy Little wrote:
>>>> "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>> I agree on being able to generate new unit types. The 'physics only' view
>>>>> of
>>>>> the world isn't very interesting to me.
>>>> That's quite funny, given that time is a physical quantity.
>>> Well for physicists it is -- but really it isn't. Leap seconds are decided
>>> by
>>> a committee...timezones are too. One thing I agree with though, if everyone
>>> would just start using a monotonic time system life would be so much easier
>>> ;-)
>> With all due respect, Boost date time doesnt treat time as a physical
>> quantity,
>> but it is primarily a physical quantity. Time will still exist long after the
> None of the users care...the point of the library isn't to treat it as a
> physical quantity.

Just trying to "raise the bar a little". The vison thing... you know ;-)

>> committee have all died, though I suppose they might think they could stop
>> that
>> scenario by voting against. I guess maybe Boost Date Time doesnt put time
>> into
>> its proper context,
> What is the "proper context" -- the rest of the units?

A time entity needs to be compatible with a physical quantities library.
otherwise its of little use to me FWIW.

>> because if it did then there would be a *little* more work
>> required, and not just on input output, but as you say that part isnt very
>> interesting to you, but its probably pretty trivial to add I guess.
> I'm sure you are insulting me, luckily I'm too dumb to get it. Regardless,
> this conversation is now off-topic and pointless. I've made my challenge --
> you guys can choose to accept it or not.


Andy Little

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at