On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 14:25, Ricky Teachey <ri...@teachey.org> wrote:
> units are at THE CORE of that need. > > i think python should be the language we reach for. i have made python work > for me as a civil engineer and been extremely successful with it for all the > usual reasons: ease of learning and community backing that learning, the open > source resources (libraries and applications), the momentum of the language, > its ability to be a swiss army knife (need to transition to web? automate the > boring thing? sure, easy). I've been reading this discussion with gradually increasing levels of bemusement. I genuinely had no idea that handling units was so complex. But one thing I did note was that there are various libraries (at least one, I think I saw more than one mentioned) that do units handling. Why are those libraries insufficient? You said that "The motivation is much more than just being able to not have the * symbol", but no-one seems to have explained why a library isn't enough. After all, scientists manage with numpy being a library and not a core feature. Data scientists manage with tensorflow being a library. What's not sufficient for unit support to be a library? (And remember, the numeric users successfully got the @ operator added to the language by arguing from the basis of it being a sufficient enhancement to improve the experience of using numpy, after years of having requests for general "matrix operations" rejected - language changes are *more likely* based on a thriving community of library users, so starting with a library is a positive way of arguing for core changes). Paul _______________________________________________ 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/RSB6AAPNDTWLP7RKVJYTTYY6FPTP5SVV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
