On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Paul A. Bristow
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:08 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention
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?
One other suggestion:
cpp_float32_t cpp_float64_t cpp_float128_t
which keeps the "cuteness" and link to the names of the hardware types, but the cpp_ prefix indicates it's a software emulation?
I think I like these a bit better - except that should they be
cpp_bin_float32_t cpp_bin_float64_t cpp_bin_float128_t
I know it's more to type, but it's important that they are recognised as a binary type?
I'm not a user of Boost.Multiprecision, but maybe namespaces would do a better job in distinguishing the types? Injecting various tags into the type names feels like C-style. Or maybe a trait to construct the necessary type: template< unsigned int Bits > struct floating_point { typedef ... hardware_type; // optional typedef ... emulated_type; typedef ... type; // hw, if available, emulated otherwise }; typedef floating_point< 32 >::type my_float32_t; Just some thoughts...