Re: [boost] GSOC 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] GSOC 2013
From: Michael Marcin (mike.marcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 18:12:51

On 4/23/13 1:59 PM, Dmitriy Gorbel wrote:
>
> 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?
>

No but IMO it was the only cool feature that fell out naturally from the 
interface.

Without it I would strongly prefer the fixed< MagnitudeBits, 
FractionalBits > interface.

Which more closely aligns with common fixed-point convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_arithmetic#Notation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(number_format)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_scaling