- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:42:08 +0100
- To: Rob Shearer <rob.shearer@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Rob Shearer wrote: >> Some machine's don't really have single float hardware, instead >> rounding from double float. > > I'm not sure that's relevant: all machines can mimic single float > (i.e. the double hardware can do single rounding after every > operation). Yes. I was suggesting there is little or no benefit to restricting to single float. > I'd be more interested in hearing how big a user base double- > precision floats really have. Are many scientific data sets encoded > using doubles? > > For the record, I'd wouldn't mind requiring double-precision floats > but only 32-bit integers. Minimal implementations of such a spec > could use a single homogeneous representation for numbers in that > case. Is it that common that current machines have 32 bit integer but not 64 bit integer arithmetic? I am more concerned about the float than the integer size, notwithstanding my comments about 128 bit float. In that case I was thinking about building for the future, and I expect that 64 and 128 bit integer arithmetic will commonly available soon, if not immediately. Perhaps worth poking around how often xsd:long is used that would be the motivation for 64 bit. -Alan
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 13:42:52 UTC