[CP2K:896] Re: units update?

[Fawzi Mohamed]

I agree with Teo,
the changes should be small, and there is not a big reason to be  
backward compatible in this case...
This is similar to a change in the code that modifies the energies...
Fawzi
On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Teodoro Laino wrote:

>
> Matthias,
>
> I personally find the idea of the --codata2006 quite silly.  MAYBE --
> codata1998 instead!
> The newest the better (as usual)!
>
> Few notices:
> Let me just point at your attention that we are not back-compatible
> (at the moment not even with cvs tree of 4 months ago)
> and hardly I think we will ever be (maybe only with a release version
> tree)..
>
> Moreover what will be the impact of this change on the numbers?
> 10^-10? 10^-8? 10^-5? 10^-3? 1?[Hartree]
> Are these changes within the error of the methodology you're using or
> larger?
> (I hope they didn't discover in 8 years that the speed of light was 1
> order of magnitude wrong..)
>
> Please, note as well that there are few people spending  several
> hours in cleaning and getting rid of duplications and now we
> are planning for it.. Can you please explain me that?
>
> So I would really like to know what is the "real reason" for having
> two sets of physical constants since, sorry,
> I cannot really understand your justification:
>
>> Numerically strict regtests and pushing the release
>> issue, but being careless concerning the employed constants does not
>> match very well in my opinion.
>>
>> Matthias
>
>
> I'm not careless.. I'm realistic.. ;-)
>
> Teo
>
>