| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Leland Brown | Sent: 09 June 2006 04:48 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Review deadline | (And BTW, it did find several bugs in my | computations by flagging dimensions problems!) Can you elaborate a little on the value of using a dimensional analysis by sharing some of these with us? We are all assuming that there is a correctness payoff (some think a BIG payoff) for using a system like yours/PQS/... but it is useful to have some evidence that our instinct is correct. (This ignores the convenience of handling units, of course). The potential users of a 'units/quantity' feature are very much more numerous than any uber-super-pointer IMO. In fact I would describe it as a 'killer application'. (I'd also like to throw in optional estimates of uncertainty to further muddy the water). So I am still very keen for the collective neurons of Boost (especially those with Meta/Template minds) to solve it, if this is possible - I am coming to fear that the language may not really make it as practicable as I thought. Paul PS If only the MKS people had known the grief they would cause by making the kilogram the fundamental mass unit... As a schoolboy, I thought it a little odd, but its full horror never crossed my mind. Some of the perpetrators must be still alive - I wonder if they are aware of what they have done? --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com