Chip Hogg

> Let us avoid phrases designed to excite emotions. Quite right --- I unconditionally apologize, and will try to do better in the future. Besides the needlessly emotionally charged language,...

I wanted to note my comments from our last meeting here, for posterity. 1. **This is probably a good idea.** I believe there are use cases for this. One example...

I assumed we would build the feature non-intrusively, on top of quantity. But if we did that, I guess it would be more like "polymorphic quantity" than "polymorphic unit". It's...

Hi @Attempt3035! Here are a few thoughts. First: if it's natural for your simulation variants to know the unit that the endpoint requires, the easiest solution would be to convert...

I've always felt a little strange about (in)equality comparisons working for `hour` and `meter`. I think we're better off with named functions. Especially since there are many different "degrees" of...

> Should `zero` be limited only to addition, subtraction, and comparison? Or maybe the following should also be a thing: > > ```c++ > static_assert((1 * m *= zero) ==...

> > As for the second example, it wasn't clear to me why zero wouldn't be able to replace 0 * si::metre. > > If we replace `0 * si::metre`...

I would expect to see this if you're doing a unit conversion between two units whose ratio has a rational power. The reason is that we always compute unit conversion...

Can we take advantage of that yet, though, and still maintain the C++20 compatibliity? WDYT --- will we need to detect `constexpr` compatibility, and provide a "hand rolled" alternative for...

> > The reason you're able to get it to work is that when you do the conversion in squared speed, rather than speed, the conversion factor doesn't have any...