Why not name the new radix-2 multiprecision types as follows? * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_24 * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_53 * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_113 * and the one for octuple precision
Sorry but that doesn't really work either - up until now we have consistently used:
float_type_N
to mean "Floating point type with at least N decimal digits", this is used consistently not only in cpp_dec_float, but in binary floating point types such as mpfr_float and mpf_float where we have typedefs such as:
Oh yeah. You're right again, and I flubbed up again. Thanks.
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?
Paul?
Others?
Thanks for your patience.
Sincerely, Chris.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 5:53 PM, John Maddock
Thank you for this astute observation. In fact, we already have a proposal for optional typedefs such as float32_t, float64_t, and float128_t. They are to be defined in the global and std namespaces, and they are to be placed in new headers
and <cstdfloat>, respectively.
Why not name the new radix-2 multiprecision types as follows? * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_24 * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_53 * boost::multiprecision::cpp_bin_float_113 * and the one for octuple precision
Sorry but that doesn't really work either - up until now we have consistently used: float_type_N to mean "Floating point type with at least N decimal digits", this is used consistently not only in cpp_dec_float, but in binary floating point types such as mpfr_float and mpf_float where we have typedefs such as: typedef something mpfr_float_50; typedef something mpfr_float_100; Which each have enough binary digits to guarantee 50 and 100 decimal place precision respectively. So cpp_bin_float follows this and also has: typedef something cpp_bin_float_50; typedef something cpp_bin_float_100; So bit counts have to use a different naming convention to avoid confusion. How about: cpp_bin_float_single; cpp_bin_float_double; cpp_bin_float_quad; ? John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost