is real an 80-bit type or not?

[Don Clugston]

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 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 ?

It is a bit weird that D has 'cent' and 'ucent' as reserved words, but 
not 'quadruple'.