Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library

Subject: Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-10 12:40:28

Le 04/04/12 23:33, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> the recent discussion on the MultiplePrecission Arithmetic library has 
> show that some people has its ow fixed point library.
>
> Is there an interest in a Boost library having as base
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3352.html?
>
> I have started a prototype 
> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/fixed_point (there is no doc 
> yet but the basic goal is quite close to the N3352 C++ proposal). This 
> prototype should allow you to play a little bit with.
>
> If yes, what would you like to be changed, added or improved in n3352? 
> Next follows some design decisions that IMO need to be decided before 
> hand.
>
> * Should integers and reals be represented by separated classes?
> * Should signed and unsigned be represented by separated classes?
> * Should the library use a specific representation for signed numbers 
> (separated sign, 2-complement? Let the user choose?
> * Should the library provide arbitrary range and resolution and 
> allocators?
> * Should the library be open to overflow and rounding or just 
> implement some of the possible policies? and in this case which ones?
> * Should fixed_point be convertible to/from integer/float/double?
> * Could the result of an arithmetic operation have more range and 
> resolution than his arguments?
> * Is there a need for a specific I/O?
> * is there a need for radix other than 2 (binary)?
> * Should the library implement the basic functions, or should it 
> imperatively implement the C++11 math functions? Could a first version 
> just forward to the c++11 math functions?
> * Should the library support just one of the know ways to name a 
> fixed-point, a U(a,b), nQm, ...? Provide some ways to move from one to 
> another?
> * Could expect the same/better performances respect to hand written code?
> * What should be the size used by a fixed_point instance? _fast? 
> _least? Should the user be able to decide which approach is better for 
> his needs?
> * Which should be the namespace? boost? boost/fixed_point? 
> boost/binary_fixed_point? boost/bfp?
> ...
> * others you can think of.
>
> Please, replay if you are interested, have some experience in the 
> domain, good ideas, ..
>
Hi,

it seems that there is no interest or perhaps people are too busy on on 
vacations

Best,
Vicente