December 17, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>It is a bit weird that D has 'cent' and 'ucent' as reserved words, but not 'quadruple'.
>
> I'd hope it'd be just "quad" :S "quadruple" is a little lengthy.
I think it will be "real".
--anders
|
December 18, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:em43j6$7tl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
>> It is a bit weird that D has 'cent' and 'ucent' as reserved words, but not 'quadruple'.
>
> I'd hope it'd be just "quad" :S "quadruple" is a little lengthy.
That could be trouble for 3D apps where 'quad' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'quadrilateral'. As in glBegin(GL_QUADS).
That said, I'm sure we could all cope.
--bb
|
December 18, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:em4k50$olh$1@digitaldaemon.com... > I think it will be "real". Then what happens when you want an 80-bit float? Or if, far in the future or on really exotic architectures, 128-bit floats are not the biggest type? |
December 18, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>I think it will be "real".
>
> Then what happens when you want an 80-bit float? Or if, far in the future or on really exotic architectures, 128-bit floats are not the biggest type?
But "real" is not defined as an 80-bit type...
When 256-bit floats arrive, they will be real.
I suggested using "extended" for fixed 80-bit.
And that real should be converted to an alias.
--anders
|
December 18, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:em5irr$1l2o$1@digitaldaemon.com... > But "real" is not defined as an 80-bit type... > When 256-bit floats arrive, they will be real. That's my point. A 128-bit float would only be 'real' as long as it's the largest floating point type available. So there'd need to be another name for them -- preferably 'quad'. > I suggested using "extended" for fixed 80-bit. > And that real should be converted to an alias. I think early in D's development 'real' was called 'extended'. There are still a few vestiges (commented out stuff) in the compiler source if I remember. That was before my time with D, though, so I couldn't tell you why it was changed. 'extended' does make more sense, and since 'real' is a qualitative type, it should be an alias (defined by the compiler, perhaps). |
December 18, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > That's my point. A 128-bit float would only be 'real' as long as it's the largest floating point type available. So there'd need to be another name for them -- preferably 'quad'. I think using "quad" for quadruple precision floating point makes sense. > I think early in D's development 'real' was called 'extended'. There are still a few vestiges (commented out stuff) in the compiler source if I remember. That was before my time with D, though, so I couldn't tell you why it was changed. 'extended' does make more sense, and since 'real' is a qualitative type, it should be an alias (defined by the compiler, perhaps). Walter didn't like the name "extended" very much: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/10261.html --anders |
December 19, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bill Baxter | Bill Baxter wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:em43j6$7tl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> It is a bit weird that D has 'cent' and 'ucent' as reserved words, but not 'quadruple'.
>>
>> I'd hope it'd be just "quad" :S "quadruple" is a little lengthy.
>
> That could be trouble for 3D apps where 'quad' is commonly used as an abbreviation for 'quadrilateral'. As in glBegin(GL_QUADS).
>
> That said, I'm sure we could all cope.
>
> --bb
My personal preference would be for the type names to explicitly contain their size:
int8, uint8, int16, uint16, int32, uint32, int64, uint64
float32, ifloat32, float64, ifloat64, float80, ifloat80
It's completely clear. No one will ever misunderstand the type sizes. And the introduction of more-precise math operations will automatically imply new names for the new types.
--benji
|
December 19, 2006 Re: is real an 80-bit type or not? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>
>> That's my point. A 128-bit float would only be 'real' as long as it's the largest floating point type available. So there'd need to be another name for them -- preferably 'quad'.
>
> I think using "quad" for quadruple precision floating point makes sense.
>
>> I think early in D's development 'real' was called 'extended'. There are still a few vestiges (commented out stuff) in the compiler source if I remember. That was before my time with D, though, so I couldn't tell you why it was changed. 'extended' does make more sense, and since 'real' is a qualitative type, it should be an alias (defined by the compiler, perhaps).
>
> Walter didn't like the name "extended" very much:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/10261.html
>
> --anders
Thanks for that link. It explains a lot -- the fact that someone immediately started flaming Walter is quite unfortunate. No-one mentioned that "imaginary real" is a horrible oxymoron.
(IMHO, they should have been "real", "imaginary" and "complex" rather than real, ireal, creal).
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation