I'd prefer they mirror the integer type naming "conventions", that is have an
explicit "Float32" and "Float64" type, with "Float" being a typealias for
Float64.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 23, 2016, at 18:26, Adriano Ferreira via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Is there any draft/proposal related to this suggestion?
>
> Best,
>
> — A
>
>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Alex Johnson via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm curious how other members of the Swift community feel about the clarity
>> of the "Double" and "Float" type names. It seems incongruous that the
>> default type for integers is "Int", but the default type for floating point
>> numbers is not "Float".
>>
>> What if the name "Float" were given to the intrinsic, 64-bit floating point
>> type? (And the existing "Float" and "Double" names were removed in favor of
>> "Float32" and "Float64"?)
>>
>>
>> Discussion:
>>
>> I understand the origins of these names in single- and double-precision IEEE
>> floats. But this distinction feels like a holdover from C (and a 32-bit
>> world), rather than a natural fit for Swift.
>>
>> Here are some reasons to keep Double and Float as they are (numbered for
>> easy reference, but otherwise unordered):
>> "Double" and "Float" are more natural for developers who are "familiar with
>> C-like languages."
>> A corollary: A 64-bit "Float" type could be confusing to those developers.
>> Another corollary: Swift needs to interoperate with Objective C, and its
>> "float" and "double" types.
>> Renaming these types would open the door to bike-shedding every type name
>> and keyword in the language.
>> Changing the meaning of an existing type ("Float") would be a bit PITA for
>> existing code (although an automated migration from "Float" to "Float32" and
>> "Double" to "Float" should be possible).
>> Renaming a fundamental type would take considerable effort.
>> Here are some reasons to rename these types:
>> The default for a "float literal" in Swift is a 64-bit value. It would feel
>> natural if that that value were of type "Float".
>> There are size-specific names for 32-bit ("Float32") and 64-bit ("Float64")
>> floating point types. For cases where a size-specific type is needed, a
>> size-specific name like "Float32" probably makes the intention of the code
>> more clear (compared to just "Float").
>> Apple's Objective C APIs generally use aliased types like "CGFloat" rather
>> than raw float or double types.
>> There is precedent for "Float" types being 64-bit in other languages like
>> Ruby, Python and Go (as long as the hardware supports it).
>> What kind of a name for a type is "Double" anyways, amirite?
>> (that last one is a joke, BTW)
>>
>> What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with any of my assessments? Are
>> there any pros or cons that I've missed? Is the level of effort so large
>> that it makes this change impractical? Is it a colossal waste of human
>> effort to even consider a change like this?
>>
>> Thanks for your time and attention,
>> Alex Johnson (@nonsensery)
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
