Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-06 06:31:28

> I will note that there is a proposal that> might alter this stance:>
Oh thanks. This is great! It's goodto see the ball rolling on that one.

Personally, I would really enjoyto see floatN_t in C/C++ world. I was notaware of this particular proposal, which does,in fact, mention, revive and extend previous,partial (yet stalled) work by Bristow, Maddockand myself --- Floating-Point Typedefs HavingSpecified Widths - N1703.
In fact, the preliminary work in
(which contains the original topic of this thread) attempts to providea sensible working model for floatN_t.
If ever desired to better align Boost with it progresses, please feel free to contactus (or me) in the future.

Kind regards, Chris

    On Saturday, February 6, 2021, 1:38:06 AM GMT+1, Jeff Garland via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:50 AM Marshall Clow via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2021, at 9:00 AM, John Maddock via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I also noticed a few basic things, maybe you can say why that is:
> >> - Why are there explicit complex classes for FP types, why is this not
> implemented completely via template? The advantage is that built-ins can be
> used, on the other hand, a separate class must be written for each FP type
> - with the problems we are currently having.
> > This is all a question for the C++ committee, my speculation would be
> that they wished to restrict the scope of std::complex to float/double/long
> double.
> I refer you to p2, which states:
>        The effect of instantiating the template complex for any type
> other than float, double, or long double is unspecified.
> — Marshall

I will note that there is a proposal that might alter this stance:

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at