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: 2012-04-12 08:32:01

Le 12/04/12 12:44, Neal Becker a écrit :
> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>
>> Le 12/04/12 01:45, Neal Becker a écrit :
>>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 12/04/12 01:34, Neal Becker a écrit :
>>>>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 12/04/12 00:25, Neal Becker a écrit :
>>>>>>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 11/04/12 14:37, Neal Becker a écrit :
>>>>> Sorry for the confusion: my comment was about run-time specified fixed
>>>>> point
>>>>> type.  If using compile-time specification of integer and fractional bits,
>>>>> then you're correct - no need for those constructor parameters.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you really need a run-time fixed-point library? If yes, what is your
>>>> context of use.
>>>>
>>> I use if with python, but for the purpose of this discussion, we can probably
>>> ignore run-time.
>> Oh, I remember it now.Yes, I would prefer we concentrate in a
>> compile-time solution.
>>
>> Vicente
>>
> Having said that, my main use case will be run-time, because I'm primarily using
> hybrid python-c++ systems.  So while we can plan a design of compile-time, I
> want to always keep run-time in mind.  If the boost solution does not support
> run-time, I will need to convert it by hand.  Hopefully that will not be
> difficult.
>
> At least whatever solution is proposed for boost, I hope some thought is given
> to how it could be used or modified for runtime, and that would not be made more
> difficult than necessary.
>
I will try to take your concern in account, but this clearly duplicates 
the library, even if the run-time design should be easier.

Best,
Vicente