From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 14:14:00
Zach Laine wrote:
>
> Specifically,
>
> quantity<force> F(2.0*newton);
> quantity<length> dx(2.0*meter);
> F.value() = dx.value();
>
> is an abomination and should be impossible. If I really want to do
> this, why not make me go through the constructor, so that attention is
> more obviously called to what I'm doing? I could also live with using
> a purposely ugly cast here, but since quantity_cast() has some
> perfectly legitimate and safe uses, I would much prefer a different
> syntax that draws attention to this unsafe act, such as
> quantity_reinterpret_cast().
I agree completely with Zach's views on this. It's OK to have a const
member function .value() but not a mutating one.
>
> I and a lot of other users badly need support for Imperial units. As
> it stands now, we will each be required to write nearly identical code
> to do so. This should be included in the library.
>
Matthias Schabel wrote:
>
> The problem with these non-standard units is that they don't really
> form a
> well-defined unit system. ...
> We have, however, supplied a number of examples of how to
> roll your own unit system...
> )
I agree with Zach and also want to be able to define units without
having to "roll my own unit system".