[interest] Is there interest in planar angle library ?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
how would this differ from boost units?
For one thing, in its dependencies, Boost.Units is a wonderful library, but for many use-cases it is too heavyweight. As mentioned before this library depends only on standard cmath. Also this library is more specialized on angle operations than Boost.Units is, at least out of the box. Matus
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
how would this differ from boost units?
For one thing, in its dependencies, Boost.Units is a wonderful library, but for many use-cases it is too heavyweight. As mentioned before this library depends only on standard cmath. Also this library is more specialized on angle operations than Boost.Units is, at least out of the box.
Another alternative might be to provide a Boost.Units wrapper-interface for your library. It could serve as an alternative and/or extension to the capabilities provided in <boost/units/cmath.hpp>. That way, if people wanted a thin version they could use yours directly, or if they wanted the same capability with units they could use the Boost.Units interface.
Another alternative might be to provide a Boost.Units wrapper-interface for your library. It could serve as an alternative and/or extension to the capabilities provided in <boost/units/cmath.hpp>. That way, if people wanted a thin version they could use yours directly, or if they wanted the same capability with units they could use the Boost.Units interface.
I've been thinking about providing conversions between angle and
Boost.Units. I will have to have a look at Boost.Unit's docs and implementation again.
participants (2)
-
Erik Erlandson -
Matus Chochlik