I just want to say that I agree with everything Paul says below. Paul A Bristow wrote:
| -----Original Message----- | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matt Calabrese | Sent: 21 October 2005 18:53 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in dimension/unit-checking library? | | On 10/21/05, Deane Yang <deane_yang@yahoo.com> wrote: | | > But wouldn't it make sense to develop a core | dimensions/units library | > without any predefined dimensions in it and develop the SI | quantities | > library as a layer above that? | | | That's exactly what my library is. It's a general physical quantities | library with SI just also provided as a set of classifications and units | coupled with the library.
I've read this discussion with renewed interest.
This sounds like a good basis to work on, potentially meeting all the requirements from the feet-on-the-ground-SI group (almost certainly by far the largest) but not excluding the head-in-the-astronomicals group (whose distances overflow SI units!), nor excluding the monetarily-important finance groups, not to mention the ones we have yet to conceive.
I worry that the compile times and complexity will outstrip both hardware and compilers, but the only way to find out is to try it. So I would encourage Matt to continue his efforts in this direction.
Paul
PS My gut instinct is to enforce explicit conversions - mainly as a matter of documenting intent, but I am just about persuaded that implicit can be OK, provided it is loseless. If we can have a way of highlighting when implicit conversion takes place, that could make everyone happier.
Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com www.hetp.u-net.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost