-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Juran Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:12 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Name and Namespace for Potential Boost Extended Floating-Point
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
I'd like to see the name be mp_float. I prefer:
mp_float mp_int mp_rational
Obviously we need the mp_ prefix if we use float and int since these are keywords without it.
How about
floating integer rational
Also, if the user puts using namespace boost::multiprecision then they will benefit from the prefix.
If the user writes "namespace mp = boost::multiprecision;", then the mp_ prefix is redundant and ugly. If you really prefer to write mp_float to mp::floating, you can still "typedef boost::multiprecision::floating mp_float;".
I prefer multiprecision to mp since the library name I'm guessing would be multiprecision and it is conventional to have the namespace be the same as the library name.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Juran Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 9:12 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Name and Namespace for Potential Boost Extended Floating-Point
On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
I'd like to see the name be mp_float. I prefer:
mp_float mp_int mp_rational
Obviously we need the mp_ prefix if we use float and int since these are keywords without it.
How about
floating integer rational
Also, if the user puts using namespace boost::multiprecision then they will benefit from the prefix.
If the user writes "namespace mp = boost::multiprecision;", then the mp_ prefix is redundant and ugly. If you really prefer to write mp_float to mp::floating, you can still "typedef boost::multiprecision::floating mp_float;".
I prefer multiprecision to mp since the library name I'm guessing would be multiprecision and it is conventional to have the namespace be the same as the library name.
Having given this matter some thought before Chris laid ideas for your input, perhaps I can give my twopennyworth. multiprecision really is the right name for both a library Boost.Multiprecision, and thus for the enclosing namespace boost::multiprecision. All the 'Big' variant names seem passé, and not quite right - or example, we *could* include floating-point types with smaller precision than float - for embedded systems. Who needs 6 decimal digits precision for a toaster ;-) Abbreviating the library name to MP is just acronymitis (and raises hackles of those who have already 'claimed' the letter letters M and P for various other purposes). Adding a trailing _ is ugly, and confused with similar nasty conventions like member functions/data, so this is an 'over my dead body' proposal. The shortness of real is neat, though I agree it is not strictly mathematically right. I could live with floating, integer (integral?) and rational. (and perhaps also decimal? - Where do decimal types - proposed, and implemented - fit into this scheme?) So FWIW, I'll go with boost::multiprecision::floating, integer and rational Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com