Re: [Boost-users] [math][tools][units] generic libraries not genericenough

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [math][tools][units] generic libraries not genericenough
From: Michael Powell (mwpowellnm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-26 14:14:09

Okay, I'm not positive I fully understood the first question in the whole
series of emails, only so far as to respond with our experience with
boost::units so far. Now, I'm really very extremely positive I don't know
the tangent we're on. Perhaps someone with more history and experience with
boost::units could give us a run-down what the premise behind b::u is, maybe
a short primer, examples, what have you, just besides the user docs. which
are fine, don't get me wrong, but might help to explain some misconceptions
about what b::u is all about. Because I for one thought I knew, or at least
still have a grasp of an idea, but wouldn't hurt for the newcomers.
Thanks...

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Fawcett <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]
> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > What are the requirements you place on X0,X1,Y0,Y1,Z0,and Z1, and how do
> > you describe the result?  Unless you can nail the semantics down, you
> > haven't written a generic algorithm.
>
> > on Fri Aug 26 2011, Michael Fawcett <michael.fawcett-AT-gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> which admittedly is not *entirely* generic since it relies on the
> >> vector3 type and probably should have taken a generic tuple, but you
> >> can at least see how the result type gets computed.
>
> And Concept Checking would have been nice.  It wasn't intended as a
> full solution, merely a quick example.
>
> --Michael Fawcett
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>