i am for high numerical acuracy (as high as possible). i support "real"
however: - maybe a better name is desirable: i work a lot with complex numbers and "real" and "imaginary" have different meanings for me. i would call it "continuous" or "accurate" or "precision" type - could we *add* a 128-bit type (eg float128)? maybe not through the compiler, but through the standard library? or even more accurate type... -finnaly, i would like standard (either through compiler or the library) aliases for types based on the following properties: "size" (8, 32, 64 bits etc.), "positiveness" (unsigned or signed) and "discreteness" (the intendend one, since implementation is always discrete) such as "continuous" or "discrete"). Examples: u8d for byte (unsigned-8bits-discrete), u16d for uint, but s64c for double. Ok, better names could be imagined... They would avoid implementation "deviances" or "extensions". And, more, if one is interested in accuracy, he should use the "real" (or, as I said, the "continuous" type). -(runtime) warnings should be risen for continuous types if machine precision limits are touched. - I don't like underscores in "hidden" types. Neither in __declspec and so on. They are a testimonies for incapability of reaching (common-sense) consensus.