Re: [boost] units: review

From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-31 12:52:42

On 3/31/07, Eric Lemings <eric.lemings_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2007, at 5:59 PM, me22 wrote:
> > ...
> > second(1)' is much uglier than '9.8 * metres / (second*second)' for no
> > apparent gain.
>
> If '9.8 * metres / (second*second)' is a valid expression, then
> 'metres/(second*second)'
> must also be a valid expression.  What is the result of the latter?
>
Is it a legal expression? It's plausible that it doesn't know the
desired representation type (double, float, etc).

Assuming it is, however, it must be the multiplicative identity: 1 *
metres/(second*second)

On 3/31/07, Paul A Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Ideally we'd have more 'squiggles' for more operators, but the ASCII char set doesn't permit this - C++ has used them all already.
>
Well, there's still @, $, and `, no?  Not that any of those would be better ;)

~ Scott McMurray