Re: [boost] Is Boost.Astronomy feasible?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Astronomy feasible?
From: Mika Heiskanen (mika.heiskanen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-05 15:42:51

Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> You might want to look into how it could integrate with geometry 
> libraries, if that is useful.

I do not see how geometry libraries would be relevant in this matter.
The formulas for most of the astronomical calculations seem to be
mostly numerical approximations. Could you elaborate?

>>   o There are several ways to define twilight times, for example
>>     civil, nautical and astronomical.
> 
> Isn't that just a matter of units?

Yes, but the API must take it into account.

> The duration of sunlight during the day or the time between a sunset and 
> its previous sunrise might also be interesting, but they're not really 
> days anymore, but rather durations of daylight.

Many newspapers will report the duration of daylight. In my own language
the newspapers usually report the number as the "length of the day". Any
implementation would have to define what exactly the term means. Duration
of daylight seems non-ambiguous to me.

> As a side note, shouldn't an astronomy library take care of handling 
> celestial bodies in the universe, and thus model their physical 
> interactions with relativity theory?
> Maybe an Earth-centric library should be given another more restricted 
> name, more tied to its scope.

boost::sun and boost::moon ?

--> Mika Heiskanen