I believe that in current state PQS can not be accepted into boost. Reasons: 1) It is almost useless for scientists. (of cause, it is very useful for engineers, though). It lacks or makes it really hard to plug-in different systems, such as C.G.S.E. (centimeter, gramme, second, and intensity of electric field from one electron is given by formula: E = e/r2. Note, no k coefficient, as in SI), standard model in theoretical physics (velocity of light is 1, plank constant is 1, etc.), relativistic model, where only velocity of light is 1 (it means that dimensions of time and length are equal. length is time and time is length). This list can be expanded dramatically (almost every physical problem can benefit from some sort of special dimensions usage). 2) In PQS concept of dimensional analysis is tightly coupled with concept of units. I believe that they _must_ be uncoupled and implemented independently. Dimensional analysis has its own value even without any units at all. Below is a description of a Dimensional/Units library that would be good enough for boost (and for users in the first place) IMO. I envision the following workflow as a typical usage of Dimensional/Units library: 1) define a dimensional space (some types of a basic dimensions. a number of dimensions can vary from application to application significantly: 7 in SI; 6 in relativistic theory; 2 in a simple financial analysis (time and money); etc.). On this step one also can establish some restrictions on dimensions usage, like: money can not be in any power different from 1, if it makes sense in a particular application. As a result of this stage one would have a number of dimension types: D1, D2,..., Dn. In SI it would be LengthDim, MassDim, etc. 2) define facets and manipulators for input/output of values of this dimension space. It is the only place where units come to play. I believe that there is really no need to have all these mm/mkm/nm stuff in code. Simple Length should be used. 3) define all sensible conversions/relations to/with other dimensional spaces. For example, if we already have SI and are going to define relativistic model, we can state that Length and Time in relativistic model can be treated as Length in SI model, and define a conversion coefficient (if our relativistic model assumes parsecs as its native Length unit, then this coefficient would map parsecs to meters). Note that it is not required if we have no need to cooperate with SI. 4) define all value types desired as in the following example: namespace relativistic { typedef quantity<double, LengthDim> Length; } 5) use it in your code: int main() { using namespace relativistic; Length l1, l2; std::cin >> l1; // in parsecs std::cin >> kilo >> l2; // in kilo parsecs Length sum = l1 + l2; //Length sum = l1 * l2; // error std::cout << giga << sum; // output “xxx GParsecs” } Of cause, library would have many different dimensional spaces out of the box. not only SI. Typically, user would be involved in the final (5) step of this process, but library would provide primitives to make life of those who can not escape 1-4 steps as easy as possible. So far, dimensions were defined as a compile time entities, whose only one influence on run-time were output. But run-time dimensional analysis can be very useful too. It means that Boost.Dimensional library should/can (note that this item is optional though) provide it. It can be useful in validating formulas originated from user input at run-time and in the real dimensional analysis. Below is a description of what I mean by that: Consider a simple experiment: drop a ball of mass M from a table whose height is H with horizontal velocity V (the gravitational acceleration is G). The question is how the horizontal distance L from the initial ball position to the point where it’ll touch floor first time is dependent on parameters {M, H, V, G}? In other words, we need to find a function f such that L ~ f(M, H, V, G). Almost everyone knows how to solve it using Newton mechanics, but we can do something even without it, by using only dimensional analysis: 1) Is it possible to construct dimensionless value from given parameters? M^m * H^h * V^v * G^g ~ Mass^m * Length^h * (Length/Time)^v * (Length/Time2)^g == 1 <=> m == 0 && h + v + g == 0 && v + 2*g == 0 <=> m == 0 && h == g && v == -2g. We can conclude that it is H * G / V2. 2) Let try to construct a Length: M^m * H^h * V^v * G^g ~ Mass^m * Length^h * (Length/Time)^v * (Length/Time2)^g == Length <=> m == 0 && h + v + g == 1 && v + 2*g == 0 <=> m == 0 && h == g + 1 && v == -2*g => H2 * G / V2 Now we can conclude, that L = (H^(g+1) * G^g / V^(2*g)) * f(H * G / V2), where f is an arbitrarily function and g can be any rational number. if g is set to be -1/2 it becomes: L = (H * V2 / G)^(1/2) * f(H * G / V2) Note that an exact answer is: L = (2 * H * V2 / G)^(1/2) Also note that mass have disappeared from our equations completely, so we can conclude that L is not affected by mass of our ball using only dimensional analysis. From this simple example it can be seen, that dimensional analysis can be used to determine a functional relationship between experimentally observable and unknown parameters that can be used to significantly reduce problem complexity. Utility that can provide such functionality would be very useful for many experimentalists and of cause a library that can be used to implement such utility would be welcomed too. I hope, that you Andy can transform your PQS library into something that was described here. And I want to thank you that you made PQS and thank you in advance if you’d be the one who’ll made Boost.Dimensional/Units library. Best regards, Oleg Abrosimov.