[squeak-dev] [Vm-dev] [commit][3152] Make sure to compile the SmallFloat64 primitives.

[Ben Coman]

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> On 26.11.2014, at 23:42, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com 
> <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> No.  Bert suggested (IIRC) ImmediateFloat64 and BoxedFloat64 and I 
>> went with SmallFloat64 and BoxedFloat64 for two reasons.  SmallFloat64 
>> because I like the symmetry with SmallInteger, and because this name 
>> scheme gracefully admits SmallFloat32, BoxedFloat32 and BoxedFloat80 
>> if ever there was the energy to add them.
> 
> Here’s my message (sent private to Eliot to not prolong the bikeshedding):

AhHA! You let the cat out of the bag then....
Sorry, I just had to pull that bike out one more time...

> 
>> From: Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de 
>> <mailto:bert at freudenbergs.de>>
>> Subject: Re: Float hierarchy for 64-bit Spur
>> Date: 24. November 2014 11:50:34 MEZ
>> To: Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>> On 21.11.2014, at 19:08, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I think I'll go with
>>>
>>> Float
>>>  |
>>>  +------- BoxedDouble
>>>  |
>>>  +——— SmallDouble
>>
>> Sounds okay. I just had another thought: use "Float64" instead of 
>> "Double". That is how JavaScript names it, and I like how 
>> it communicates exactly what it is without having to implicitly know 
>> about the IEEE standard's nomenclature. Also, with the digits in 
>> the name it screams "low level", and would easily extend to 32 and 128 
>> bit floats.
>>
>>
>> Float
>>  |
>>  +------- BoxedFloat64
>>  |
>>  +——— SmallFloat64
>>
>>

(only half tongue-in-cheek) Should SmallFloat61 have been considered?

cheers -ben