Re: [boost] Interest in an arbitrary precision library?

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 12:59:16

arbitrary_precision_float is rather long, even for Boost preference for
clarity over curtness - but a*float is/are far too cryptic.

How about just precision_float?  with the arbitrary or rather user-defined
implied>

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com

  

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
| Sent: 08 September 2005 17:09
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Cc: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in an arbitrary precision library?
| 
| From: Joel Eidsath <jeidsath_at_[hidden]>
| > Andy Little wrote:
| > 
| > >How about  APF  standing for abitrary precision float?
| > >
| > Sounds pretty good.  I'll either use that or "abfloat" to 
| go along with 
| > integer.
| 
| I hope you meant "apfloat" at least.  Nevertheless, such an
| abbreviation is not Boost style, so I'd suggest
| "arbitrary_precision_float."  Users can always typedef it to
| something shorter.
| 
| -- 
| Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
| Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
| Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: 
| http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|