Thank you for hosting the meeting yesterday, Aaron!

With regard to this poll: Should the _Float* C names be available
(through some means) in C++ and be used as the types behind the
std::float* aliases?

The SA vote rationale was "My reasons against were that similar but
slightly incompatible types is not good for the same names. ...."

Previous polls had consensus to align the usual arithmetic conversions
between C and C++, but did not have consensus for applying the C++
implicit conversion rules to C. With regard to the SA rationale above,
is the "slightly incompatible types" concern directed at those
differences in the implicit conversion rules? Or is the concern over
other differences? If the latter, a list of notable differences would be
useful.

My understanding is that the intent of P1467R4, and as stated by the
author yesterday, is that these types would have the same semantics in
each language with the only exception being that, in some cases, a use
may be ill-formed in one language and not the other (e.g., the
differences in the implicit conversion rules).

Tom.

On 10/7/21 8:57 AM, Aaron Ballman via Liaison wrote:
> The meeting minutes from the Oct 2021 special session on
> floating-point types can be found at:
> https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2021/Teleconference2021-10-06.
> The WG14 minutes will be posted to the document log in the near
> future.
>
> Big thanks to Rajan Bhakta for taking minutes, and to all the
> attendees for having such a productive special session!
>
> ~Aaron
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/10/0867.php