Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention
From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-06 14:10:08


> I think I like these a bit better - except that should they be >  cpp_bin_float32_t >  cpp_bin_float64_t >  cpp_bin_float128_t I can go with those, too. They are also good names. Sincerely, Chris. On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:53 AM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:08 AM > To: boost_at_[hidden] > Subject: Re: [boost] [multiprecision] Radix-2 typedef naming convention > > > >> How about: > >> cpp_bin_float_single; > >> cpp_bin_float_double; > >> cpp_bin_float_quad; > > > > Fine with me! Those are good names --- consistent with existing Boost > > style, easy to recognize, and unambiguous. > > Can we get a consensus on those names? > > One other suggestion: > > cpp_float32_t > cpp_float64_t > cpp_float128_t > > which keeps the "cuteness" and link to the names of the hardware types, but the cpp_ prefix indicates it's > a software emulation? I think I like these a bit better - except that should they be   cpp_bin_float32_t   cpp_bin_float64_t   cpp_bin_float128_t I know it's more to type, but it's important that they are recognised as a binary type? Is double always 64 bit and float always 32? And quad isn't a float-point type yet? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK +44 1539 561830  07714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk