Simplify common unit if label has just one unit #338
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
If we don't do this, it's a weird situation: we end up with a `CommonUnit<A, B, ...>` type, whose _label_ is just the label for a single _simple_ unit `X`... which is quantity-equivalent to `CommonUnit<A, B, ...>`. This means that when we print it, it will _look just like it is_ `X`, and people might get confused. With this PR, when we're in this situation, we simply make `CommonUnitT<A, B, ...>` return `X` itself! To do this, we _could_ try to piggyback on the label definition. I found that way introduces some really confusing circular dependencies. I find it is much simpler to simply count the _distinct unscaled units_ in the common unit, and do the simplification exactly when we get down to only one. Helps #105.
This slipped through the cracks in the development.
chiphogg
added
the
release notes: ✨ lib (enhancement)
geoffviola
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If we don't do this, it's a weird situation: we end up with a
CommonUnit<A, B, ...>type, whose label is just the label for asingle simple unit
X... which is quantity-equivalent toCommonUnit<A, B, ...>. This means that when we print it, it willlook just like it is
X, and people might get confused.With this PR, when we're in this situation, we simply make
CommonUnitT<A, B, ...>(note theT, i.e., "compute the common unit")return
Xitself!To do this, we could try to piggyback on the label definition. I
found that way introduces some really confusing circular dependencies. I
find it is much simpler to simply count the distinct unscaled units in
the common unit, and do the simplification exactly when we get down to
only one.
Helps #105.