Mateusz Pusz

We could not provide those at all and leave the definition of short names to the user. It would even improve compile times a lot as this is the biggest...

Sure, please do. Although it may take a while before we start tuning up the compile-time performance.

Is there anything else you would like to discuss in this issue? Can we improve something here besides the docs that I've updated already?

Agreed, I will review the docs and think about how to improve the examples. However, I do not think that there is anything wrong with using-directives if they are used...

I just finished the review of all the examples in the documentation. Using-directive was nearly never used in the global/namespace scope, so we are fine. Additionally, I improved the "Important"...

> FWIW I don't know if this is correct behaviour in the following (gcc-13) , but if you uncomment the SOMETHING define assert fires, and not if you don't. Sure,...

We could consider an alternative approach here. Instead of having to do `using namespace si::unit_symbols` we could reorder the namespaces and provide `using namespace unit_symbols::si`. This would allow us to...

> Dump the multiply number by unit syntax! This probably is not going to happen because the constructor syntax does not compose. Just compare the two definitions: ```cpp quantity q1...

I would actually be really interested in hearing some feedback from you when you are done. My understanding is that conversions from unsafe raw values to quantities should happen only...

Interesting, can you repro your specific case in the Compiler Explorer (https://godbolt.org)?