Am 2013-07-16 11:41, schrieb Cédric Krier:
> On 16/07/13 12:12 +0300, Giedrius Slavinskas wrote:
>> > 2013/7/15 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>
>>> > > On 15/07/13 10:25 +0300, Giedrius Slavinskas wrote:
>>> > > So let's introduce it.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > class Measure(namedtuple('Measure', ['quantity', 'unit'])):
>>> > > __slots__ = ()
>>> > >
>>> > > def convert_to(self, uom, round=True):
>>> > > Uom = Pool().get('product.uom')
>>> > > return Measure(Uom.compute_qty(self.unit, self.quantity, uom,
>>> > > round=round), uom)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Which will make:
>>> > >
>>> > > Measure(1000, gr).convert_to(kg) == Measure(1, kg)
>> >
>> >
>> > I suggest more intuitive interface/naming. Here is just the idea,
>> > nothing mean to work.
>> >
>> > class Quantity(namedtuple('Quantity', ['units', 'uom'])):
> I don't understand why using "units" ? For me, it sounds wrong.
> unit is what is called uom == Unit of Measure.
>
> Quantity sounds like it is a scalar, when measure sounds better
> especially because we already use "Unit of Measure".
nitpicking:
uom should be "unit of measurement".
"measure" is something different than "measurement", see [1], I would
associate it with set-theory and calculus.
"quantity" seems to be the correct term (according to wikipedia). Thus I
propose:
class Quantity(namedtuple('Quantity', ['amount', 'uom'])):
boost_units c++-library[2] also uses "quantity" for dimensionful numbers, but
I'm not sure if this should be given much weight ;)
mfg
Robert
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure
[2] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/boost/units/quantity.html
