[RFC]: add various physical constants (tracking issue) about stdlib HOT 7 OPEN

👋 Hi there! 👋

And thank you for opening your first issue! We will get back to you shortly. 🏃 💨

from stdlib.

@itskdhere I'm not opposed the addition of various constants; however, my guess is that we'd need to resolve package organization before actually adding any of the specified constants. E.g., they may need to be categorized by domain.

And also, do note that your initial list above contains duplicates. We'd only want one package per constant.

from stdlib.

Also, can you articulate why you want these particular constants? Typically, we've only added constants as we've needed them. This RFC proposes adding them for their own sake and is likely to be lower priority.

from stdlib.

Also, can you articulate why you want these particular constants? Typically, we've only added constants as we've needed them. This RFC proposes adding them for their own sake and is likely to be lower priority.

I want to add these constants like the physical constants of scipy.constants (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/constants.html#physical-constants)

from stdlib.

@itskdhere I'm not opposed the addition of various constants; however, my guess is that we'd need to resolve package organization before actually adding any of the specified constants. E.g., they may need to be categorized by domain.

Yes, maybe the proposed physical constants can be added in something like @stdlib/constants/physical/* .
For example: @stdlib/constants/physical/speed_of_light

And also, do note that your initial list above contains duplicates. We'd only want one package per constant.

I just listed all physical constants available in scipy.constants (except CODATA ones) in my initial list above.
And in case of duplicate ones, I think the full name ones might be preferred. For example, speed_of_light might be preferred instead of c

from stdlib.

I wonder if it would make sense instead to follow the dictionary API found in SciPy instead, as done for CODATA.

from stdlib.

I wonder if it would make sense instead to follow the dictionary API found in SciPy instead, as done for CODATA.

Yes, that will be good.

I've checked the implementation of that in SciPy and it might be a little tricky but interesting thing to implement.

So, should I change #2119 (comment) according to that or open a new issue ?

from stdlib.