Peder Holt <peder.holt@gmail.com> writes:
On 6/12/05, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Peder Holt <peder.holt@gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
[Please try to limit the amount of quoted text in your postings]
Ok :)
double< 3,1415927 ,E<+6> >
One more problem: It is not possible to write e.g. the number 3.00011 in the above notation: double_<3,00011> First of all, 00011 is interpreted as 9. Second, there is no way to distinguish this from: double_<3,9> (as I know of)
Right... I knew about that problem and somehow it disappeared for me as I wrote out the example :(
The alternatives would then be: double_<31415927,E<-7> > (which is basically the same as what Andy does in his physical quantities library)
DOUBLE(3,00011,E<0>) where 1 is temporarily prepended to 0001 to preserve the preceding zeros.
That's not a bad concept, although "the andy method" also looks pretty nice to me, and avoids the macro.
I discovered that using base 2 exponent in stead of base 10 exponent
I don't understand what you mean her. Where is this exponent used? Does the user specify the exponent in base 2 (probably not)? YOu must mean in the representation?
I mean the representation.
Ah, well that's what the machine's FPU does too.
I just need to find the correct transformation between the E<N> notation and the 2^M notation.
Yup. I'm sure you can find well-researched information about that somewhere. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com