-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul A Bristow Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:10 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] units review
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen Sent: 05 April 2007 18:00 To: boost@lists.boost.org 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? Eric.