"Phil Richards" <news@[...].uk>  wrote in message
news:20031024160836.4766C8C01C@[...]..
>  On 2003-10-24, Deane Yang <deane_yang@[...].com> wrote:
>  >  I can't disagree with that, but from listening to the physicists
explain
>  >  their needs, I haven't heard anything that the physicists want that
>  >  isn't also wanted by many of us non-physicists, except the desire to
>  >  hardwire the definition of dimensions to actual physical dimensions. So
>  >  all I am trying to express is the desire not to have the core library
>  >  somehow tied to physical dimensions only.
> 
>  Why not start with what we know is wanted, and develop from that?

I agree.

Other tails on this thread are looking at  "How to implement issues.
I suggest that before going too far down that road, the first thing is to
get  a didactic definition of What this thing is, What it should do etc.
So I will step back and attempt to work on that. A preview of the shape of
my definition is contained in my contributions to this thread.
and I am certainly not trying to  preclude anyone else submitting their
proposals...

I will attempt to avoid implementation issues as far as possible.
To provide examples of use.
Reasons why this type might be useful.
Costs and benefits,
existing examples which might be improved by it.
Problems caused by its use etc.

and will get back with that

To paraphrase Johnny Rotten
"I know what I want and I dont care how I get it."

Andy Little
andy@[...].uk









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