John Phillips skrev:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
John Phillips skrev:
I’m happy to report that the quantitative units library developed by Matthias Schabel and Steven Watanabe has been accepted for inclusion in boost.
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 submission?
Thanks
-Thorsten
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 system.
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?
Yes. Thanks. -Thorsten