is real an 80-bit type or not?

[Anders F Björklund]

Bill Baxter wrote:

>>> I read somewhere (won't say where ;-)) that someone is annoyed by D 
>>> "pretending that "real" is an 80-bit type".  Is it not?  real.sizeof 
>>> sure seems to return 10 for me.

>> "int" is a fixed 32-bit type, everywhere. "real" varies in size.

> That all sounds perfectly reasonable.  So why would that make it onto 
> someone's "top D peeves" list?

In my case it's on my pet peeves list because of the "it's 10 for me".
So you have hardcoded assertions that real.sizeof > double.sizeof...

Kinda like the "if (Win32) else //linux ;", it's making assumptions.
They are valid for DMD, but break for GDC - and make porting harder ?

But most of all I dislike the "imaginary real" and the "complex real".
(see http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/18061.html)

Since it's not going to change anyway, I'm OK with coping with it...
But still think the 16-bit and 128-bit types would have been nice ?

--anders