Brandon Elam Barker

+1 for allowing the definition of any prefix

That sounds reasonable to me!

That's why I mentioned Year vs GregorianYear (the first is 365 days, the second is a bit off and would be defined down to the second to account for the...

I do have an application that makes heavy use of Months, and somewhat frequent use of Weeks and Years. On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Derek Morr wrote:...

Adding a note to consider other time-derived quantities (e.g., `MassFlow`), so that one could do `.toPoundsPerDay` instead of `toPoundsPerHour*24`.

I agree that a solution of some sort in the 1.x series would be desirable; both for immediate use, and for cases where one might not have time to upgrade...

I think that assertion would be great! I also agree tests are helpful in just the way you describe (incidentally, some of my errors were actually in the tests -...

Since we can work with `n: A` directly, which is slightly simpler than working with `num`, I worked from the example I linked above to create a `!

Any other thoughts on the last proposal I mentioned using the custom `!

That looks good to me ... Hadn't thought of using null. Don't think we need to bother with the type alias though, since we're not going to be using this...