Sylvester-Bradley, Gareth wrote:
So this is the last call for anyone who can't live with it.
Since you're still asking... :-)
* I believe we received more positive feedback for "a variation of float...", neither real nor decimal. * The consensus seems to be that the namespace mp is terse and confusing. * Some like the trailing underscore. Most, however, do not favor it.
+1 all from me.
namespace boost { namespace multiprecision {
OK, so far...
class floating { }; } }
Please no! I'd expect a class name like this to be a noun (possibly preceded by adjectives). Am I alone?
My vote goes to the following, already mentioned earlier:
namespace boost { namespace multiprecision { class mp_float; } }
I'm OK with multiprecision::floating. I'm guessing that floating would actually be a template with compile time precision based on previous statements by the author. template <int precision> //number of bits class floating {}; So if the user typed using namespace multiprecision; typedef floating<128> f128; f128 my_val; It would be pretty clear, I think, what his intent was. Also, an instance of such a template isn't mutli-precision anymore, it is fixed precision, so mp_floating<128> is somewhat self contradictory. If floating isn't a template and has runtime precision then I'd rather see it named mp_float. I'm only half joking when I say that if it were my library I'd very likely name it multiprecision_floating_point_type. I use epic length identifiers instead of comments. A function name is often a whole sentence explaining what the funcion does, eg. rectangularize_negative_by_leaps. I do try to keep the sentence short and to the point, though. I'm actually getting worse about this as I get older. The switch to wide aspect ratio monitors has only encouraged this behavior and I now consider 160 characters to be a resonable line length limit. Perhaps my opinion on naming things should be taken with a grain of salt. Regards, Luke