Open JohelEGP opened 6 years ago
yup. What a "unit" actually was changed quite a bit over the library development, leading to everything having essentially the same name. Now that the scope is more clear, I think this makes a lot of sense. Maybe conversion_factor
is better than conversion
?
conversion_factor
is the best name.
The similarity in naming of
units::unit_conversion
andunits::unit
, previouslyunits::unit
andunits::unit_t
, respectively, have caused havoc in the documentation, whether in the source's code or comments alike.I suggest dropping the redundant
unit_
inunits::unit_conversion
. If we useconversion
orunits::conversion
, andConversion
in template parameters, it becomes clear what's being referred to. At least more clear in respect to avoiding confusion withunits::unit
.Conversion is already in the vocabulary of the C++ community. Since the
unit
'sConversion
template parameter would be used to describe just how units convert to other units, I don't think renamingunit_conversion
toconversion
would be a cause of significant confusion. But I do believe that there might be room for a better name.