Suitable new name for Dimensional library

Isaac Dupree isaacdupree at
Fri Sep 28 11:11:45 EDT 2007

Björn Buckwalter wrote:
> There are two primary reasons I have been wanting to change the name.
> Firstly I wanted to move the library from the arbitrary
> 'Buckwalter.Dimensional' namespace into the standard hierarchy. At
> Don's suggestion (patch) the library has been moved to the
> 'Numeric.Dimensional' namespace and if no-one objects it will remain
> under 'Numeric'.

seems fine to me

> Secondly, I feel that "Dimensional" is to vague and ambiguous, in
> particular it could just as well refer to dimensions in the linear
> algebra sense as physical dimensions.

They are somewhat related.  But indeed your library only deals with 
specific named dimensions...

> I'd like a more specific and
> perhaps less pretentious name for the library. This is where I would
> appreciate some feedback as to what would be appropriate. Some
> suggestions are:
>   - Numeric.Units
>   - Numeric.PhysicalUnits
>   - Numeric.PhysicalDimensions
>   - Numeric.SI
>   - Numeric.SIUnits
>   - Numeric.Units.Static
> (While the library isn't limited to SI units or even the SI dimensions
> they are the main focus and default export.)
> Personally I like 'Numeric.Units' (it emphasizes that units are the
> key to interacting with the library) but I'd love to get a second,
> third and fourth opinion!

perhaps: Numeric.Units.SI exports the SI units... but then it's not 
obvious what to do with the other exports (Dimensionless etc.) - 
Numeric.Units I guess?

I don't remember, is it possible for modules that import yours, to 
define arbitrary new units of their own?

Is the module's API good enough (or unlikely enough to be duplicated or 
significantly changed) to use a clean name -- or are we not supposed to 
be worrying about that because of namespace separation by package?  I'm 
a little confused here, but I think it doesn't matter if our 
infrastructure is good enough?


More information about the Libraries mailing list