Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[RFC] Orthogonality between signed/unsigned and Fixed/Normed #199

Open
kimikage opened this issue Jul 11, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

[RFC] Orthogonality between signed/unsigned and Fixed/Normed #199

kimikage opened this issue Jul 11, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@kimikage
Copy link
Collaborator

As commented in #143 (comment), Fixed/Normed (i.e. the difference in scaling factor) and signed/unsigned are orthogonal concepts.

Type (scaling) Fixed (2^f) Normed (2^f-1)
signed ✔️ ❌ N/A
unsigned ❌ N/A ✔️

Historically, Fixed is signed and Normed is unsigned, but I think we should separate the two orthogonal concepts as much as possible.

I do not intend to support unsigned Fixed and signed Normed right now. However, I think that it is "safe" to describe in README.md that they may be supported in the future, because we have no systematic way to notify the downstream packages of the breaking changes to the existing Fixed and Normed.
(Whether relaxing is considered "safe" or "unsafe" depends on the point of view.)

At least I think it is worth writing that in CONTRIBUTING.md. It clarifies whether the code should be written in "src/FixedPointNumbers.jl", "fixed.jl" or "normed.jl". I think that the code which is not related to scaling factors should be written in "src/FixedPointNumbers.jl", i.e. should be commonized.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant