Chip Hogg

I'm not expecting to be able to work on this before March at the earliest, because any spare bandwidth I might have would go towards the standard units library papers...

@khansson, your original example is now enshrined as a test case that helps make sure this feature works.

> We can discuss specific things, though. For example, we can decide that we can allow implicit or explicit conversions from the raw value to a dimensionless quantity with a...

> I'm now beginning to think this is wrong-although I concede that a clear definition of "dimensionless" is required to make such a claim. But one of the key properties...

Here's my opinion. Yes, we should be able to instantiate a unitless quantity from a raw numeric value of the same type. Yes, this should include implicit conversions. It's perfectly...

I could see this becoming idiomatic. One downside may be that we're changing the verb, from "in" to "to". The reason to prefer keeping the verb the same is that...

I think `cast_to` is better than `force_in`, yes. I'm starting to suspect that the global optimum might be `.to` and `.cast_to`, but changing `.in` to `.to` would be a monumental...

For posterity, here's my take on this issue (as shared in our recent WG21 meeting): - Yes, we should definitely provide a `zero_Celsius` type to represent the origin. We don't...

A magnitude (whether represented via vector spaces, or some imagined future alternative) is a _positive real number_. I think it's too hasty to say that negative magnitudes make sense: I'm...

If we can't find a clear answer from the definition as to whether units can be negative, then we should reach out to leading experts in the field to clarify....