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?
Unless there are strong objections I plan to go with those names - also merge all the code to SVN Trunk fairly soon.
OK, great. Sounds fine.
I keep using cpp_bin_float off-and-on. I have not encountered
any problems. I would like to look at overflow / underflow
for add, sub, mul, div. In addition, I find that the performance
drops way down as the digit count increases --- even worse than
cpp_dec_float. But this old hat and not relevant regarding trunk.
(Because we already know that we need more advanced
multiplication routines if we want to support high digit counts.)
I think it's great that you took on radix-2 big float, John.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Chris.
On Sunday, November 17, 2013 1:01 PM, John Maddock
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?
Unless there are strong objections I plan to go with those names - also merge all the code to SVN Trunk fairly soon. Rationale: 1) The types aren't actually 32/64/128 bits in size, merely emulating types that are. 2) The cpp_bin_float128_t names are too close to the decimal-digit names for comfort (ie potentially confusing). 3) Other than quad precision, I doubt many folks will use these anyway, so lets just paint the bike shed and be done with it ;-) John. PS to Paul (and anyone else interested): can I get you look at the revised numeric_limits docs as I've made some changes to your original draft: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/multiprecision.cpp_bin_float/libs/mu...