> On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Steven G. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 8:51:49 AM UTC-4, Scott Jones wrote: > To avoid name conflict problems, like I've been concerned about elsewhere? ☺ > > If it really became important to use both simultaneously and pass numbers > from one to the other, you could have both of them depend on another package > "AbstractDecimals.jl" or something that just defines the types. But it > seems premature to do this unless there really turns out to be a need; it > will be easy to refactor in this way if so.
Given that these Decimal types are part of the IEEE-754 2008 standard, I don’t think that it is unreasonable to have at least the abstract types part of Base already. > However, it would be better to figure out if decNumber is comparable in speed > to the Intel package. If it is, and it supports more functionality, it would > be better to just switch DecFP.jl to use that > (https://github.com/stevengj/DecFP.jl/issues/12) so that there is only a > single DecFP package. What if, as I suspect, the Intel package is faster on Intel hardware? There also might be things that decNumber has, that the Intel package doesn’t… It would be good to be able to mix & match, even for the same type (for example, decNumber might have more complete or standard support for rounding modes, but not as many transcendental functions…) I’d like to be able to pick the best from each library (given that the formats are standard) Scott
