On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Andres Valloud <avalloud@smalltalk.comcastbiz.net> wrote:

I'd rather this didn't happen... now we will always have to remember that "float32" is really what everybody else calls "float", "float64" is really what everybody else calls "double", and "float80" is... who knows... maybe the x87 extended double...

I don't see this. Squeak has had Float for a long time, and for those that know C that's confusing since float there-in means 32-bit single-precision, whereas in Squeak Float means 64-bits (double precision). But as Bert said, Float64 is what JavaScript calls double-precision, and BoxedFloat64 and SmallFloat64 are good descriptive terms. They don't match VisualWorks, but that's not been a problem in practice.

It is a "double", what's the problem with calling it a "double"?

Double's not got a good dual for single-precision. SIngle is a poor name. that's what really made me lean to Bert's suggestion, that if wanted we can add Float32, or even Float80, and Float32 is a much better name than Single. SinglePrecisionFloat is a mouthful. What we have now means that Squeak and Pharo (and perhaps Newspeak) code will continue to use Float, since the concrete names don't need to be used, or even recognized, except in specialized contexts (e.g. intra-dialect copying?), since Floats print themselves literally.

Also, using C's names isn't a good rationale. It may work for VM implementors but has nothing of value for Smalltalk programmers.

On 11/26/14 14:42 , Eliot Miranda 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.

best,

Eliot