From 329ffdaacb1bd7bed08565ac80d9eef7ccb1e5b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mateusz Pusz Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:32:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] docs: minor cleanup of the blog post based on Johel's feedback --- .../posts/bringing-quantity-safety-to-the-next-level.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/blog/posts/bringing-quantity-safety-to-the-next-level.md b/docs/blog/posts/bringing-quantity-safety-to-the-next-level.md index a8c1b81d..faeebbdd 100644 --- a/docs/blog/posts/bringing-quantity-safety-to-the-next-level.md +++ b/docs/blog/posts/bringing-quantity-safety-to-the-next-level.md @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ quantity work = isq::work(q2).in[J]; !!! important - It is essential to realize that whatever multiplication and division are for scalars, + It is essential to realize that just like multiplication and division are for scalars, vector and scalar products are for vectors. We never want to accept a quantity that accidentally was created with multiplication instead of division of its arguments or with the scalar product instead of a vector product, right? @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ hidden within the quantities hierarchy tree. This also means that adding a _posi and a _displacement_ should result in a _position vector_. Let's try to do it: ```cpp -// quantity q8 = pos1 + displacement; // Compile-time error +quantity q8 = pos1 + displacement; // Often a compile-time error ``` Unfortunately, this often fails on the very first step, even before assigning the result to @@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ We might be tempted to say "NO" to questions #4 and #5 as `isq::altitude` is def while `isq::length` is not specified as such. However, I've just realized that it is not the case. The proper answer to questions #4 and #5 is "It depends". If we are dealing with a `quantity_point` -than converting from `isq::altitude` to `isq::length` or the other way around should work. However, +then converting from `isq::altitude` to `isq::length` or the other way around should work. However, it would probably be a bad idea for a `quantity` type. It turns out that `common_quantity_spec()` is similar. It is probably safe to state that it should