Other notes

[BCS]

Reply to Bill,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to bearophile,
>> 
>>> 4) Every language feature adds complexity to the compiler, makes the
>>> language manual longer, requires programmers to remember more
>>> things, etc. So every language feature has to be kept only if enough
>>> people use it, without a good way to replace it, etc. I like D real
>>> type, but so far I have't found a situation where double can't solve
>>> my problem. So who of you is using the real type? If there isn't
>>> enough people using it then it may be removed from the D specs.
>>> 
>> I only use real. On most, if not all, systems it's just as fast as
>> double (OK it needs more IO time but...) so why not use it?
>> 
> You answered the question right there.  More memory means occupies
> more cache, more disk etc.  I basically only use real for intermediate
> temporaries where I might want to keep a little more precision.
> 

point taken

> I basically never store reals or pass them between functions. 10 bytes
> is kind of a weird size for alignment-sensitive things too.
> 

I use it for parameters and return values, I would only downsize to double 
if I'm storing a lot of them. In my cases, my programs tend to be computationally 
heavy but not very data heavy. Having a few hundred values around at any 
one time would be unusual.

> But I don't think it needs to be removed from the specs.  It's neat
> you can get at it when you need it.
> 
> --bb
>