From: Eric Lemings (lemings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-05 16:22:48
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Paul A Bristow
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:10 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] units review
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> >[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen
> >Sent: 05 April 2007 18:00
> >To: boost_at_[hidden]
> >Subject: Re: [boost] units review
> > > I'm not sure that I'm really keen on this. measurement
> > > really doesn't belong in this library.
> > A voice from the back of the room seconds that motion.
> > The work I do is heavily involved with measurements, and there are
> > all kinds of interesting, difficult, and even unsolved issues. I
> > suggest that a measurement library would be built on top of an
> > existing units library, not as part of it.
> > I really don't think you want to open this can of worms yet. :-)
> It's a REALLY, REALLY interesting can though - but I agree we
> should wait to walk with the units library before trying to run with
> measurements and their uncertainty.
This whole issue is a.k.a. error propagation?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk