[PD-dev] double precision pd?

[Dan Wilcox]

I agree the “64” naming, while technically correct, will just get mixed up with architecture.

Too bad “dp” is already used by pddp.

I now think of “wide” pd but that’s perhaps too general, although could be fun.

enohp ym morf tnes
-----------
Dan Wilcox
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com


> On Jun 5, 2023, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:44:54 +0200
> From: IOhannes m zm?lnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> To: pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] double precision pd?
> Message-ID: <0891ab25-d572-828b-881a-cef4cc65c300 at iem.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> 
>> On 6/4/23 17:22, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
>> well, great then, cause it's been merged :) time to get ready for double
>> precision finally then I guess! Really excited about it <3
> 
> 
> the other question that ought to answered is: how do we actually call it 
> in order to prevent confusion?
> 
> "Pd double precision" is a bit clumsy.
> 
> "Pd64" is terser ("pd64.exe", "libpd64.dll"; and that's what I called 
> the tentative double-precision packages for Debian/Ubuntu/... for now) 
> but of course there might be some confusion with amd64/x86_64/arm64...