Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > SIunits-style dimension checking and vectors

Reply
Thread Tools

SIunits-style dimension checking and vectors

 
 
Lo?c Henry-Gr?ard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
Hi,

I'm using a homebrew, lightweight version of SIunits, the physical
dimension checker. For example I define types such as m (meters), s
(seconds) and mps (meters per second) in namespace SI and I have all
the overloadings of operator* such as

SI::m operator* (SI::s, SI::mps)
{ ... }

saying that a velocity multiplied by a time yields a distance.

On the other hand, before I had implemented the dimension checking, I
was using a generic three dimension vector type with an operator*

vec<T1> operator* (T2 a, vec<T1> b) { return vec<T1> (b.x * a, b.y *
a, b.z * a) ; }

Now of course if I cannot multiply a time by a vector of speeds and
automatically get a vector
of distances, since the template tries to instanciate

vec<SI::mps> operator* (SI::s a, vec<SI::mps> b)

which is not dimensionally correct.

I'm not familiar with the full-blown implementation of SIunits, even
though I use the same basic idea of a template parameterized by ints
giving the exponent of the unit in each dimension.
I don't know if their implementation allows an elegant implementation
of a generic vector class that would work transparently for normal
scalar types and for dimension-checked units, e.g.
that would implement

vec<SI::m> operator* (SI::s, vec<SI::mps>)

But since my problem looks quite common I thought someone might have
an idea of the most elegant way to do that.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jeff Schwab
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2003
Lo?c Henry-Gr?ard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using a homebrew, lightweight version of SIunits, the physical
> dimension checker. For example I define types such as m (meters), s
> (seconds) and mps (meters per second) in namespace SI and I have all
> the overloadings of operator* such as
>
> SI::m operator* (SI::s, SI::mps)
> { ... }
>
> saying that a velocity multiplied by a time yields a distance.
>
> On the other hand, before I had implemented the dimension checking, I
> was using a generic three dimension vector type with an operator*
>
> vec<T1> operator* (T2 a, vec<T1> b) { return vec<T1> (b.x * a, b.y *
> a, b.z * a) ; }
>
> Now of course if I cannot multiply a time by a vector of speeds and
> automatically get a vector
> of distances, since the template tries to instanciate
>
> vec<SI::mps> operator* (SI::s a, vec<SI::mps> b)
>
> which is not dimensionally correct.
>
> I'm not familiar with the full-blown implementation of SIunits, even
> though I use the same basic idea of a template parameterized by ints
> giving the exponent of the unit in each dimension.
> I don't know if their implementation allows an elegant implementation
> of a generic vector class that would work transparently for normal
> scalar types and for dimension-checked units, e.g.
> that would implement
>
> vec<SI::m> operator* (SI::s, vec<SI::mps>)
>
> But since my problem looks quite common I thought someone might have
> an idea of the most elegant way to do that.


Well, the most straight-forward way would be to specialize each operator
for all possible argument types. A more sophisticated approach would be
to define a traits template, specialized for each possible pair of
argument types. I've posted code below to show the idea; this is
absurdly simple, and I'm not familiar with the "SIunits" package to
begin with, so don't think I'm implying this code is production-worthy.
It should at least compile, though, and that ought to prove the
point.

namespace SI
{
struct s { int value; s( int v =0 ): value( v ) { } };
struct m { int value; m( int v =0 ): value( v ) { } };
struct mps { int value; mps( int v =0 ): value( v ) { } };

template< typename T > struct vec
{
T x, y, z;

vec( T const& ax, T const& ay, T const& az ):
x( ax ), y( ay ), z( az ) { }
};

template< typename T, typename U > struct Traits { };
template< > struct Traits< s, mps > { typedef m Product_Type; };

template< typename T, typename U >
typename Traits< T, U >:roduct_Type
operator * ( T const& a, U const& b )
{
typename Traits< T, U >:roduct_Type result;
result.value = a.value * b.value;
return result;
}

template< typename T, typename U >
vec< typename Traits< T, U >:roduct_Type >
operator * ( T const& a, vec< U > const& b )
{
return vec< typename Traits< T, U >:roduct_Type >(
a * b.x, a * b.y, a * b.z );
}
}

int main( )
{
SI::s s;
SI::mps mps;
SI::vec< SI::mps > mpsvec( 3, 4, 5 );
SI::m m = s * mps;
SI::vec< SI::m > mvec = s * mpsvec;
}

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a question about 1-dimension and 2-dimension array Luuk C Programming 15 02-11-2010 02:45 AM
c++ primer statement about vectors containing vectors pauldepstein@att.net C++ 3 03-26-2008 06:22 PM
Ruby, SWIG and C++: how to properly wrap vector of vectors of doubles (2D vectors)? Ruby 0 09-14-2005 05:47 PM
Compile-time matrix dimension checking and template friend question Ben Ingram C++ 6 01-30-2004 05:18 PM
newbie question : picture dimension vs print dimension Rene Wong Digital Photography 9 09-30-2003 01:46 AM



Advertisments