Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:43:21 -0800
On Monday, 8 February 2021 05:58:20 PST Rob Lefebvre via Std-Discussion wrote:
> Thanks, Thiago.
>
> > Since the precision is useful for C coders too, can we approach WG14 and
> > agree on the solution?
> I think you're saying that having the "guaranteed round-trip" precision
> would be useful for C, so we should come up with something that is printf
> compatible. How about the letter "r" for "real" (or "round trip" or
> "robust") instead of "z"? (Honestly, I don't really care what letter it
> is, but having something mnemonic would be ideal.)
That makes sense, but only so long as the same functionality doesn't apply to
'f' or 'e'. Is there such a thing as exact round-trip for those two? If so,
you want a modifier, not a type.
> Thanks, Thiago.
>
> > Since the precision is useful for C coders too, can we approach WG14 and
> > agree on the solution?
> I think you're saying that having the "guaranteed round-trip" precision
> would be useful for C, so we should come up with something that is printf
> compatible. How about the letter "r" for "real" (or "round trip" or
> "robust") instead of "z"? (Honestly, I don't really care what letter it
> is, but having something mnemonic would be ideal.)
That makes sense, but only so long as the same functionality doesn't apply to
'f' or 'e'. Is there such a thing as exact round-trip for those two? If so,
you want a modifier, not a type.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering
Received on 2021-02-08 18:43:26