From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-12 07:13:20
John Phillips skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> John Phillips skrev:
>>> Iâm happy to report that the quantitative units library developed by
>>> Matthias Schabel and Steven Watanabe has been accepted for inclusion in
>> This is of course good news.
>> However, I would like to know what the main difference between this
>> submission and the one previously rejected.
>> Has the reasons for rejecting the first library been solved in the new
>> submission? Furthermore, what are the main differences between the two
> The main difference is probably that Matthais and Steven were not
> trying to be all things to all people in the realm of units. Andy's
> library tries to provide compile time, runtime and I/O facilities, all
> in one package. This makes his library quite complicated, makes zero
> runtime overhead hard to approach and made it so his library
> documentation promised many things as forthcoming features that did not
> exist. Things like adding new units or systems are quite hard in Andy's
> If you recall the discussion from Andy's submission, there were a
> number of other points involved, but I think these are the most
> important ones. This library solves some of the problems by not trying
> to be all answers at once. By doing so, the issues of I/O format,
> documentation complexity and difficulty of extension are all gone. This
> may not turn out to be a complete enough answer for some potential
> users, but the opinions of the reviewers (many, but not all of whom also
> contributed in the PQS review) are largely that this is a better way to
> go about it than the PQS approach.
> Does that help answer your question?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk