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
Thanks for this great library! I think it'd be a cool feature to have physical constants directly integrated with uom. Existing crates such as natural_constants and physical_constants don't use units at all and instead just have the constants as floating-point numbers.
Some considerations:
Physical constants could be considered outside the scope of uom and might be better suited to being defined in their own crate (uom-constants perhaps).
If constants are included in uom, they should probably be gated behind a feature flag.
The values of the constants could be taken from NIST, but deciding which constants to include and which to ignore is also an issue.
I'm not entirely sure how constants would interact with the different underlying storage types. Some constants are exact integers (e.g. speed of light in vacuum) whereas most are floating-point and have some uncertainty.
I'd be happy to begin work on this feature if you think it's suitable for uom and the above considerations are resolved.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for this great library! I think it'd be a cool feature to have physical constants directly integrated with
uom
. Existing crates such asnatural_constants
andphysical_constants
don't use units at all and instead just have the constants as floating-point numbers.Some considerations:
uom
and might be better suited to being defined in their own crate (uom-constants
perhaps).uom
, they should probably be gated behind a feature flag.I'd be happy to begin work on this feature if you think it's suitable for
uom
and the above considerations are resolved.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: