Re: [boost] GSOC 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] GSOC 2013
From: Dmitriy Gorbel (dmitriycpp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 14:59:59

Michael, thanks for your comments and for the source code.

In the range and resolution examples a lot of mistakes,
you are right. I was careless, sorry.

Michael Marcin-3 wrote
> negatable<16,-8> -65536 < n < 65536 in increments of 2^-8
>   = 1/ 256
> This seems close to a fixed point type as I'm used to seeing it.
> Although again the ranges seem wrong.
> I'm much more accustom to seeing fixed point number specified as
> <Magnitude bits, Fractional Bits>
>  i.e. <16,8> instead of <16,-8>.

I think, I must provide opportunity to choose the notation.

Michael Marcin-3 wrote
> Still this representation makes sense because it specifies both
> parameters in terms 2^x. It also supports something like <17,1> to give
> a 16 bit type that has the range [-131072, 131071] in increments of 2.

If use notation from C++1y proposal, 
I plan that value witch set resolution always be negative, 
and minimal resolution: 2^-1 = 1/2
I don't plan to implement something like <17,1>. 
You think this is really necessary feature?

Sincerely,
Dmitriy. 

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/GSOC-2013-tp4645089p4645943.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.