I think I like these a bit better - except that should they be
cpp_bin_float32_t cpp_bin_float64_t cpp_bin_float128_t
I can go with those, too. They are also good names.
Sincerely, Chris.
On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:53 AM, Paul A. Bristow
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:08 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention
How about: cpp_bin_float_single; cpp_bin_float_double; cpp_bin_float_quad;
Fine with me! Those are good names --- consistent with existing Boost style, easy to recognize, and unambiguous. Can we get a consensus on those names?
One other suggestion:
cpp_float32_t cpp_float64_t cpp_float128_t
which keeps the "cuteness" and link to the names of the hardware types, but the cpp_ prefix indicates it's a software emulation?
I think I like these a bit better - except that should they be cpp_bin_float32_t cpp_bin_float64_t cpp_bin_float128_t I know it's more to type, but it's important that they are recognised as a binary type? Is double always 64 bit and float always 32? And quad isn't a float-point type yet? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost