Re: Question about ordinary fixed point types.

["Peter C. Chapin" <chapinp@acm.org>]

On 2010-08-16 10:28, Robert A Duff wrote:

> I'd expect "*" and "/" to be faster for binary smalls,
> but I don't think it makes any difference for "+" and "-".
> Multiplying angles by angles doesn't make much sense...

Probably true. On the other hand I anticipate needing other fixed point
types before I'm done so I think it would serve me well to get used to
using binary smalls.

> You can test your test.  That is, write the loop using the
> advice elsewhere in this thread, and unchecked-convert
> each value to an integer of the same size, and see if
> you get the integer representations you are expecting.

I might try that for interest's sake. If I understand you properly, I'd
have to (re)run that test for each implementation that I use. Of course,
I'm not really using very many implementations (just two).

Peter