arbitrary_precision_float is rather long, even for Boost preference for clarity over curtness - but a*float is/are far too cryptic. How about just precision_float? with the arbitrary or rather user-defined implied> Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com www.hetp.u-net.com | -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart | Sent: 08 September 2005 17:09 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Cc: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in an arbitrary precision library? | | From: Joel Eidsath <jeidsath@gmail.com> | > Andy Little wrote: | > | > >How about APF standing for abitrary precision float? | > > | > Sounds pretty good. I'll either use that or "abfloat" to | go along with | > integer. | | I hope you meant "apfloat" at least. Nevertheless, such an | abbreviation is not Boost style, so I'd suggest | "arbitrary_precision_float." Users can always typedef it to | something shorter. | | -- | Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com | Software Engineer http://www.sig.com | Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer; | _______________________________________________ | Unsubscribe & other changes: | http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost |