[Haskell-cafe] ANNOUNCE: Dimensional 0.6 -- Statically checked physical dimensions

[Björn Buckwalter]

David Roundy wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:27:47PM +0200, Björn Buckwalter wrote:
> >  I am also assuming that the CGS system would not be employed when
> >  working with temperature, amount or luminosity. This is evident in
> >  the below type signatures where I have assumed zero extent in the
> >  temperature, amount and luminosity dimensions. If this is incorrect
> >  I would appreciate pointers to the CGS representation of these
> >  dimensions.
> >
> >  Please correct and inform me if my assumptions are wrong!
>
> The temperature units are the same in CGS as in MKS (Kelvin).

Which implies that CGS is applicable to temperatures... what is the
(conventional) dimension of temperature in CGS? Is it the same as for
Energy (L^2 M^1 T^-2)?


> >  This is a very rudimentary implementation. To make it more practical
> >  a significant number of quantities and units, in particularly those
> >  commonly used with the CGS, would need to be added. In the mean
> >  time all units defined for the SI can be used with the CGS by
> >  applying 'fromSI' to quantities defined from the SI units.
> >
> >  If anyone is willing to add quantities/units (or other enhancements)
> >  I will happily to accept patches. Personally I do not expect to use
> >  this module and therefore do not intend to invest much more time
> >  in it. If the module has other users I might reconsider.
> >
> >  And of course, another direction of future work is to define
> >  additional systems (e.g. natural, relativistic) using this module
> >  as a template. I imagine this should be fairly straight forward.
>
> When atomic units are implemented, this could be useful for me... but alas
> I very seldom use Haskell for physics, and the effort to learn these
> modules seems unlikely to pay off soon.  :(

Learning to use the modules should require little effort. Learning
enough to implement the atomic system of units would require
significant effort though. Unfortunately I don't see myself
implementing atomic units, at lease not anytime soon.

Thanks,
Bjorn