Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-01 12:54:17
>I might still prefer this way. But we would need to
>document that these types are not intended to be
>equivalent to binary32, binary64, etc. in IEEE754.
Nod, they're functionally equivalent, not bit-for-bit equivalent.
PS we could also use float_single_t, float_double_t, float_quad_t etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk