Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: "Serve Lau" <aser@xxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:12:36 +0200
"Richard Tobin" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f65smj$153t$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <f65s3p$pvf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Army1987 <please.ask@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Add: "For the qfloat type, it invades the user name space, since I
was too lazy to call it _QFLT_EPSILON."
I'm not convinced about this. Using a leading underscore on names
intended for the user (rather than the implementation) is not helpful
to the user who wants to use the extensions. We don't see Posix using
underscored identifiers for everything. A better plan is to provide a
switch to disable it. This works perfectly for generic C code.
I agree. A good example is microsoft visualC++. They added keywords with
double underscores for .NET. But users complained so much about the ugliness
of the code that they switched to "normal" names in the next version
It might be better to have a single #define of an underscored name -
perhaps _LCC_EXTENSIONS - to control all lcc's extensions, as that
allows the user to turn it on or off for individual include files.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
.
- References:
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Army1987
- Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- From: Richard Tobin
- Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Prev by Date: Re: reply the answer
- Next by Date: Re: Struct assignment
- Previous by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Next by thread: Re: Machine epsilon: conclusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|