Hmmm, Number::Binary doesn't seem to be taken, at least according to

What about $enc = Number::Binary->encoder("name"); $dec = 

You could also make it easy to get inverse functions by accepting an
object; e.g. $dec = Number::Binary->decoder($enc);

e.g. $e80 = Number::Binary->encoder("intel80")->encode(2.71828)

    printf( "%s: %s\n", Number::Binary->name("intel80"),

    >> Intel extended floating point: 2.71828

Supporting BigXXX for the native value seems important, not only for the
large floats, but some ints. 

E.g. Double precision integers (128 bit, or 64 bit on a 32-bit platform
- or 72 bit on a 36-bit platform)

You're the expert; whether the encoders figure out whether bignum was
used in the caller, or the decoder constructors take a "use_big" option,
or the result of decode is specified as a possibly overloaded object
that can do math, or ... I leave to you. 

Besides finessing bignums, making the output of decode an object allows
for a path to info methods - besides name, sizes common to all, maybe
things like "smallest number of bits that are needed for this value"
(e.g. would this fit in a smaller format without loss of precision?) 
Not sure what the right list would be, but once there's one, it will
probably grow.

Yes, small can get interesting too - e.g. saturating 8-bit bytes packed
in something bigger...

Sounds like fun.  Hope this helps.  Good luck.

On 03-Jun-21 08:52, Peter John Acklam wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback!
> I see your point regarding the Math:: namespace and agree that it
> isn't the best. Alas, Number::Encode is already taken. I suggested
> Number::Pack and Number::Unpack because they aren't taken and because
> of the module's similar functionality to pack() and unpack().
> I agree that there should be a simple wrapper and that the format
> should not be a part of the module name specified by the user. I also
> agree about not assuming floating point. Actually, one of the use
> cases is encoding/decoding unsigned 24 bit integers, which are used by
> ImageMagic when reading/writing PAM (portable anymap) images.
> There is also Data::IEEE754, but I think the Data:: namespace is too
> general. I will only be dealing with numbers.
> Peter
> tor. 3. jun. 2021 kl. 13:22 skrev Timothe Litt <>:
>> I'd be a bit careful about assuming floating point - will someone want to 
>> pack/unpack BCD? Or PDP-10 Gfloat (well, OK that's a floating format)?  Or...
>> I don't like Math:: - it implies that it does arithmetic (or calculus, or 
>> statistics, or - more than a conversion).
>> And I'd rather not have a format name encoded in the module that the user 
>> calls.
>> How about Number::Encode->new("name") & Number::Decode->new("name")?
>> Let "name" get to a subclass, so other formats can be supported just by 
>> adding a module - e.g. "Number:Encode::BCD" could be require'd if 
>> *->new('bcd') called.  Obviously, you'd implement IEEE754, Intel80, and 
>> whatever else...
>> Define the API for the subclasses - encode(),decode(), perhaps some info 
>> functions (e.g. a printable name, perhaps exponent and fraction range/#bits, 
>> ...)
>> Then someone who wants Number::Decode::VAX_DFLOAT just calls 
>> Number::Decode->new('vax_dfloat') - after writing it.
>> Some of these can get interesting if you want to decode and actually do math 
>> - presumably you'll support Math::BigXxx / bignum? (binary128, VAX 
>> H_Floating are, IIRC about 36 decimal digits)
>> And some program that reads archived data can have a description language 
>> that is simply "name"  "format" "byte offset" "length", and not worry about 
>> what module handles what format.  In fact, such a program might appreciate 
>> the trivial modules Number::Encode::INTEGER32 (and perhaps the less obvious 
>> Number::Encode::INTEGER32_ONESCOMPLEMENT)...
>> I suspect there are better names for the format, but the idea is to export a 
>> simple wrapper so the next format can be added by anyone, and the callers 
>> don't have to know too much.
>> FWIW.
>> On 03-Jun-21 06:23, Peter John Acklam wrote:
>> I also plan to implement the 80 bit "extended precision" format, which
>> is not IEEE 754 compatible. Perhaps the best and simplest is
>> Number::Pack and Number::Unpack?
>> Peter
>> tor. 3. jun. 2021 kl. 11:43 skrev Peter John Acklam <>:
>> Hi
>> I am working on two modules for encoding and decoding numbers as per 
>> IEEE754. The pack() function can encode and decode the formats binary32 
>> (single precision) and binary64 (double precision). My module can also 
>> handle binary128 (quad precision), binary16 (half precision), bfloat16 (not 
>> an IEEE754 format, but it follows the IEEE754 pattern), and a few other 
>> formats.
>> My question is about the namespace. Is Math::IEEE754::Encoder (and 
>> ...::Decoder) OK? Or is Number::IEEE754::Encoder better? Or any other?
>> Here is an example showing how I use it:
>> my $encoder = Math::IEEE754::Encoder -> new("binary16");
>> my $bytes = $encoder -> (3.14159265358979);  # = "\x42\x48"
>> my $decoder = Math::IEEE754::Decoder -> new("binary16");
>> my $number = $decoder -> ($bytes);               # = 3.140625
>> The reason for returning an anonymous function rather than implementing the 
>> function directly, is speed. There are some constants involved, and I don't 
>> want to compute them for each function call.
>> Cheers,
>> Peter John Acklam (PJACKLAM)

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to