On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 06:16:49AM -0000, Brian McCall wrote: > So a comprehensive implementation of units would not require more than > 160 units, and in reality, a "sufficient" implementation would need > only 7.
The idea that a system which only supported the seven SI base quantities, and so couldn't even convert from imperial to metric, would be "sufficient" boggles my mind. Sufficient for what? > An exceptionally good implementation could probably be done > with right around 100. You must be easily pleased if you consider 100 units "exceptionally good". In 1986 the HP-28C calculator supported 120 units, plus user-defined units. If you don't at least reach the standard available in 1986, I'm not even sure if you reach "good", let alone exceptional. (And yes, the HP-28C included teaspoon and tablespoon, but not hogshead, Roman mile or furlong.) I would consider the Unix program "units", and Frink (which inherits its unit database from units), to be comprehensive. 160 units is about 7% of comprehensive. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/54ZIL4BK2OGXRTM5A2MTFEXUMGS5WG7I/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
