We can certainly decide on the best name. I personally don't feel strongly about how exactly it will be named.

-----Original Message-----
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Ted Lyngmo via Std-Proposals
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 7:55 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden]
Cc: Ted Lyngmo <ted_at_lyncon.se>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Extended precision integers

2025-11-26 01:47, JJ Marr via Std-Proposals:
> > As a complimentary alternative, we can address the 3rd bucket by
> adding a yet another integer type long long long, with implementation-
> defined width that would not be less than that of long long. For the
> platforms where the extended precision is irrelevant (embedded targets,
> possibly freestanding systems), the implementers can define it as an
> alias for long long. The desktop and server targets can opt for long
> long long to have 128 bits.
>
> The standard guarantees `int` is at least 16 bits, `long int` is at
> least 32 bits, and `long long int` is at least 64 bits.
>
> Would there be disadvantages to breaking the symmetry that implies `long
> long long int` would be at least 128 bits?

I hope something else than `long long long` will come out of it, but no,
introducing it wouldn't break anything unless unreasonable requirements
were put on/around this type/typedef.

Please, whatever it becomes, don't let it be `long long long`.

Br,
Ted
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals