Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention

I might still prefer this way. But we would need to document that these types are not intended to be equivalent to binary32, binary64, etc. in IEEE754.

Nod, they're functionally equivalent, not bit-for-bit equivalent. John. PS we could also use float_single_t, float_double_t, float_quad_t etc.