On Wednesday, 27 August 2025 18:50:54 Pacific Daylight Time Julien Villemure-
Fréchette via Std-Proposals wrote:
> The argument in P1467R9 that the get_exponent function below is moot on a
> IEC559 platform. int get_exponent(double x) { /* ... */ }
> int get_exponent(std::float64_t x) { /* ... */ }
>
> If both double and std::float64_t have identical representation, behavior
> and intent, then I expect both overloads of get_exponent will have
> identical function body implementation with indistinguishable behavior for
> every pair of equivalent double/std::float64_t inputs. This situation makes
> overloading both useless, and a burden: implement identical code with
> identical behavior for types with identical behavior and identical
> representation. Not to mention all possible function signatures using
> double would often also need to be deduplicated.

Indeed but you can turn the argument around: suppose I am writing some mostly-
generic content and I don't *know* whether double and float64_t are the same or
not. If one is a typedef for the other, I can't create overloads, meaning I
have to #if my code on something.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel Platform & System Engineering