In John's new radix-2 MP back end, names are used for common types such as:
float24_t, float53_t, float113_t.
In our proposal for floating-point typedef's having specified widths, we use names such as:
float32_t, float64_t, float128_t. Both conventions make sense in sensible ways. But only one naming convention should be used, and it should be used consistently.
Which one will it be?
Good point.
I think float32_t, float64_t, float128_t are better since they describe the size of the type and are aligned with integer typedefs.
That was my thought, although note that in the case of the Boost.Multiprecision types these are emulations of those hardware types and are not actually 32, 64 or 128 bits in size. And evn in hardware, an 80-bit extended real may actually occupy 128 bits in memory... John.