Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: James Kuyper <jameskuyper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:11:14 -0400
On 06/05/2012 06:54 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
בתאריך יום שני, 4 ביוני 2012 20:20:43 UTC+1, מאת Keith Thompson:
REAL would be better.
That's a fine idea -- but FLOAT is a lousy name for it.
However not all programmers know what that means.
A typedef like that is always intended for use in a specific context; it
should not mean "the floating point type that should be used in all
contexts". It should mean something like "the floating point type to be
used when working with this particular library", and the name should
contain at least a hint of the correct context; neither "FLOAT" nor
"REAL" does so.
--
James Kuyper
.
- References:
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Joe keane
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: James Kuyper
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Nobody
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Raj Pashwar
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Raj Pashwar
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- Prev by Date: Re: Quasi 0
- Next by Date: interpret this code?
- Previous by thread: Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- Next by thread: Re: Decomposing a FLOAT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|