On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 at 15:42:56 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I see, so the fact that both the C++ and D specs say the same
thing doesn't matter, and the fact that D also has the const
float in your example as single-precision at runtime, contrary
to your claims, none of that matters.
D doesn't even have a spec, so how can they possibly say the same
thing?
However, quoting the Wikipedia page on IEEE floats:
«The IEEE 754-1985 allowed many variations in implementations
(such as the encoding of some values and the detection of certain
exceptions). IEEE 754-2008 has strengthened up many of these, but
a few variations still remain (especially for binary formats).
The reproducibility clause recommends that language standards
should provide a means to write reproducible programs (i.e.,
programs that will produce the same result in all implementations
of a language), and describes what needs to be done to achieve
reproducible results.»
That's the map people who care about floating point follow.
No sane DSP programmer would write that like you did.
What kind of insult is that? I've read lots of DSP code written
by others. I know what kind of programming it entails.
In fact, what I have described here are techniques picked up from
state-of-the-art DSP code written by top-the-of-line DSP
programmers.
Since the vast majority of tests will never use such
compile-test constants, your opinion is not only wrong but
irrelevant.
Oh... Not only am I wrong, but my opinion is irrelevant. Well,
with this attitude D will remain irrelevant as well.
For good reasons.
Then don't use differently defined constants in different places
I don't, and I didn't. DMD did it.
