Added t_force, short_ton_force and long_ton_force #796
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Owner
|
Looks good. Just two things:
|
Adds definitions for metric ton force and long ton force to the default definitions. Fully backward compatible (i.e. ton_force, force_ton and US_ton_force are still available, and behave the same as before). Added definitions: - force_metric_ton, metric_ton_force, force_t, t_force - force_short_ton, short_ton_force - force_long_ton, long_ton_force, UK_ton_force
Author
|
Voila! |
Owner
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2019
796: Added t_force, short_ton_force and long_ton_force r=hgrecco a=janheindejong I added the definitions of the different ton force metrics. Added: - ``force_metric_ton``, ``metric_ton_force``, ``t_force`` and ``force_t`` in the root system - ``force_long_ton`` and ``long_ton_force`` in the Avoir-Dupois group - ``force_short_ton`` and ``short_ton_force`` in the Avoir-Dupois group - ``UK_ton_force`` and ``US_ton_force`` in AvoirdupoisUK and AvoirdupoisUS Furthermore, I moved ``force_ton`` and ``ton_force`` to the AvoirdupoisUS. This definition is backward compatible (i.e. ``force_ton`` and ``ton_force`` are still the same). I'm not entirely sure if I'm working with the systems and groups correctly. I haven't been able to create different implementations of ``ton_force``, depending on what system is used. In my case, the one defined last in the definitions file is used, irrespective of what system is used. Please let me know what you think! Co-authored-by: JHdJ <jhdj@allseas.com>
Contributor
Build succeeded |
Author
|
Great! Any idea when you'll release a new version, so we can start using this in our organisation? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I added the definitions of the different ton force metrics. Added:
force_metric_ton,metric_ton_force,t_forceandforce_tin the root systemforce_long_tonandlong_ton_forcein the Avoir-Dupois groupforce_short_tonandshort_ton_forcein the Avoir-Dupois groupUK_ton_forceandUS_ton_forcein AvoirdupoisUK and AvoirdupoisUSFurthermore, I moved
force_tonandton_forceto the AvoirdupoisUS.This definition is backward compatible (i.e.
force_tonandton_forceare still the same).I'm not entirely sure if I'm working with the systems and groups correctly. I haven't been able to create different implementations of
ton_force, depending on what system is used. In my case, the one defined last in the definitions file is used, irrespective of what system is used.Please let me know what you think!