Andy Little wrote:


>  Yep.
>  (As an aside I hope we are discussing the same thing.
>  ie physics, physical quantities. Physics is just about big enough to deserve
>  its own personal entities. :-)
>  Sorry.. but my view is that generalisation to boxes of apples or types of
>  gasoline is really the road
>  to squish.)
>  

I disagree. What physicists need is not that special.

>  I see  a "physical quantity" type as a concrete
>  type  like complex or BjarneStroustrup's Date
>  class in C++3rdEd.
>  
>  A major  contention I think is the basis of the  type.
>  One view is that the dimension should be a type:
>  
>  length mylength;
>  
>  My view is that the unit should be the type:
>  
>  length::metres mylength;
>  

I agree 100% (but I'm not so sure about the "length::").


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost