From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-13 23:30:37
Phil Richards wrote:
> I think in this particular case you *don't* want dimensional analysis at
> all - you want the good old-fashioned "let's define the operators we need
> on the things we need" approach. This would be achieved simply by giving
> the value "unit" but no dimension - and what we would want is that the
> library would not allow implicit conversion between dimensionless things
> with different unit.
>
> (details omitted)
No, unfortunately not. Because I really do need to do the
multiplications and divisions and, as you observed, this is the key
feature of the dimensions library.