You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the move to split-species, I removed the PhysicalConstant nature of constants which are properties of a species (eg ion mass, level energies, etc), since I was having trouble getting PhysicalConstants to work in this context (#8). We could fix this by changing the struct so that it works in this context; is it worth it? In general, I don't really see value the PhysicalConstant struct adds if it doesn't do things like understand SI prefixes or multiply two constants give give a new one with new units, but even if it could, would this be very useful?
The main problem I want to point out is that the usage of it is currently inconsistent due to the above-mentioned issue #8 (used for constants like alpha and hbar, but now not for things like the mass of Ca40).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the move to split-species, I removed the PhysicalConstant nature of constants which are properties of a species (eg ion mass, level energies, etc), since I was having trouble getting PhysicalConstants to work in this context (#8). We could fix this by changing the struct so that it works in this context; is it worth it? In general, I don't really see value the PhysicalConstant struct adds if it doesn't do things like understand SI prefixes or multiply two constants give give a new one with new units, but even if it could, would this be very useful?
The main problem I want to point out is that the usage of it is currently inconsistent due to the above-mentioned issue #8 (used for constants like alpha and hbar, but now not for things like the mass of Ca40).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: