Laurent writes:
> so many useful ones anyway. Each client module would then require the
> module with the unit system it needs, i.e. measures/si or
> measures/atomic.
>
> The units are now in a separate file but I did not try to build another base.
> But at least it's possible to r
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> Laurent writes:
>
> > Pushed: https://github.com/Metaxal/measures#4-dimensions-and-contracts
>
> This is getting better and better every day! The use of contracts looks
> like the best way to do run-time dimensional analysis.
>
Thanks, tha
Laurent writes:
> Pushed: https://github.com/Metaxal/measures#4-dimensions-and-contracts
This is getting better and better every day! The use of contracts looks
like the best way to do run-time dimensional analysis.
My only remaining wish is to be able to define my own set of units and
prefixes
Pushed: https://github.com/Metaxal/measures#4-dimensions-and-contracts
Laurent
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Laurent wrote:
> That's a good idea, and it's quite easy to implement using contracts!
> Would something like this suit you? (this is currently working as is)
> https://gist.github.
That's a good idea, and it's quite easy to implement using contracts!
Would something like this suit you? (this is currently working as is)
https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/7212740
Laurent
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> Laurent writes:
>
> > So I've redesigned it som
Laurent writes:
> So I've redesigned it somewhat, and now there are 2 calculation "modes":
> - The normal mode is pretty much like Frink (probably the one you want),
> which converts
> everything to base SI units. Conversion back to non base units can be done
> afterwards.
Well, what I rea
Greetings.
On 2013 Oct 28, at 11:05, Laurent wrote:
> So I've redesigned it somewhat, and now there are 2 calculation "modes":
> - The normal mode is pretty much like Frink (probably the one you want),
> which converts everything to base SI units. Conversion back to non base
> units can be done
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:54:22AM +0100, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> Laurent writes:
>
> > Indeed, the notion of dimension is not really what I was after. My
> intention was rather
> > to provide a useful unit converter.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > If my current units are in N, and I multiply by squa
Point taken.
So I've redesigned it somewhat, and now there are 2 calculation "modes":
- The normal mode is pretty much like Frink (probably the one you want),
which converts everything to base SI units. Conversion back to non base
units can be done afterwards.
- The "quoted" mode prevents a unit fr
Laurent writes:
> Indeed, the notion of dimension is not really what I was after. My intention
> was rather
> to provide a useful unit converter.
Fair enough.
> If my current units are in N, and I multiply by square seconds, I
> think it's not always desirable for the measure to be automat
That's a cool language!
Unfortunately time is running short and I don't think I'll do something
close to that (and there is actually little chance that I'll use this
package myself, so I'm not really committed to it).
But I think it's already quite usable.
And anyone who wants to contribute or even
Indeed, the notion of dimension is not really what I was after. My
intention was rather to provide a useful unit converter.
If my current units are in N, and I multiply by square seconds, I think
it's not always desirable for the measure to be automatically converted to
m.kg.
Currently it does not
In case you need ideas for interesting examples:
http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/#SampleCalculations
The Frink language is a DSL for calculating with units.
http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/
/Jens Axe
2013/10/26 Laurent :
> Ok, so I just hacked together a small lib for handling numbers with u
Laurent writes:
> Examples and details here:
> https://github.com/Metaxal/measures
At first glance, I miss the notion of "dimension", which defines if
two units are compatible, i.e. can be converted. If I understand your
approach correctly (which I am not sure about), you consider each
product
A few years ago, my approach (which didn't get very far) was to internally
maintain values in some chosen internal units; this input conversion occurred
once, when variables were defined or otherwise introduced into the program. The
conversion to the user-desired units then took place once via f
The last line applies to my thoughts not yours.
As someone else indicated, I think we should experiment with 'dimension'
(distance, time) vs 'units' (meters vs yards, seconds vs hours). This
separation injects a hierarchy that could be useful.
I'd really like to see some experimentation here
So does this mean you think the representation I took is bad for some
reason? If so why?
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> 1. I would hope that some generics might help here.
> 2. I see a need for struct mixins here because meter isn't a refinement
> per se but some
1. I would hope that some generics might help here.
2. I see a need for struct mixins here because meter isn't a refinement per se
but some 'attribute'. Then you could mixin several different units and I may
have both m and m-1.
Data representation not fully thought thru. -- Matthias
On
How would you represents quantities like 2 kg.m^2/s^-2 with that?
And how would you convert from mi/h to m/s?
Anyway, I've started adding in some converters:
https://github.com/Metaxal/measures/blob/master/converters.rkt
Some more to come, but I may not be able to work on it for very long for
now
Wouldn't we want something like this:
#lang racket
(module+ test (require rackunit))
(struct distance (value) #:transparent) ;; this should be abstract
(struct yard distance () #:transparent)
(struct meter distance () #:transparent)
;; distance distance -> distance
(module+ test
(check-
Ok, so I just hacked together a small lib for handling numbers with unit
symbols and exponents:
Quick example:
> (measure->value
(m* '(18 s)
'(1600 km (h -1))
'(1000 m (km -1))
'(1/3600 h (s -1
'(8000 m)
You can get it with:
$ raco pkg install measures
or from the File
On 2013-10-25 14:29, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> [...]
> A quick Google search led me to
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/F_Sharp_Programming/Units_of_Measure
>
> which says
>
>"Important: Units of measure look like a data type, but they
> aren't. .NET's type system does not support the be
Thomas Chust writes:
> in that respect, the type system of F# may be noteworthy, too. The
> support for dimensions is built into the language in that case.
Interesting. A quick Google search led me to
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/F_Sharp_Programming/Units_of_Measure
which says
"Importa
On 2013-10-25 12:14, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
> [...]
> In fact, the only approaches
> I know of that use static type checking are Boost.Units for C++
> (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/boost_units.html),
> and the units package for Haskell (http://hackage.haskell.org/package/units).
> [.
Alvin Schatte writes:
> Is there a library or package that combines numbers and their
> operations with dimensions that may be associated with them?
Apparently not, from what I learn from previous discussions on this list.
Doing this well is actually far from trivial, in any language, but it
w
This discussion reappears occasionally, and there are some accomplishments. You
can start here to at least figure out how to search for more info:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-November/049198.html
rac
On Oct 24, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Alvin Schatte wrote:
> Is there a library or
Is there a library or package that combines numbers and their operations with
dimensions that may be associated with them?
Alvin Schatte
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
27 matches
Mail list logo
