Subject: bug#13580: 24.2.92; regression in calc-convert-units

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:21:39 +0200

> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:55:37 -0600
> From: "Roland Winkler" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> On Thu Feb 7 2013 Jay Belanger wrote:
> > > Please recognize the difference between dimensionless and unitless.
> > > 3 ft/in is dimensionless, but it has the unit "ft/in". 
> > 
> > "The expression is unitless when simplified"
> 
> I am sorry, this is a rather unique interpretation of the concept of
> "dimensions" vs "units" in physics.  Is there no other physicist
> reading this?

I am, but AFAIU this is not an issue whether dimensionless and
unitless are the same (they are not).  The issue is how this
makes a difference in relevant use cases with Calc.

So I suggest that you show several examples where the new behavior is
not what the user will want, and propose a better behavior in those
cases.  Up until now, the discussion here didn't show enough clear
examples for me to make up my mind on this issue; perhaps Jay is
unconvinced for the same reason.