The former is the way MathCAD does it, and appears more engineeringly correct, imho. Any reason not to support both? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Lemings [mailto:lemings@roguewave.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:13 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 Lewis Hyatt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:59 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] units: review
Eric Lemings wrote:
It's not a faux operation: the unit is already plainly specified as part of the type and the value of the quantity is plainly specified as the constructor argument. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.
consider this usage:
quantity<SI::length> l1(2.0 * SI::meters); quantity<SI::length> l2(2.0
* Astro::parsecs); //for illustration only
I would express that differently: quantity<SI::length> l1 (quantity<SI::meter>(2.0)); quantity<SI::length> l2 (quantity<Astro::parsecs>(2.0)); //for illustration only And I could be way off base here but the latter form would appear more familiar/acceptable to most C++ programmers. Eric. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost