I agree the “64” naming, while technically correct, will just get mixed up with architecture.
Too bad “dp” is already used by pddp.
I now think of “wide” pd but that’s perhaps too general, although could be fun.
enohp ym morf tnes ----------- Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On Jun 5, 2023, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:44:54 +0200 From: IOhannes m zm?lnig zmoelnig@iem.at To: pd-dev@lists.iem.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] double precision pd? Message-ID: 0891ab25-d572-828b-881a-cef4cc65c300@iem.at Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 6/4/23 17:22, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: well, great then, cause it's been merged :) time to get ready for double precision finally then I guess! Really excited about it <3
the other question that ought to answered is: how do we actually call it in order to prevent confusion?
"Pd double precision" is a bit clumsy.
"Pd64" is terser ("pd64.exe", "libpd64.dll"; and that's what I called the tentative double-precision packages for Debian/Ubuntu/... for now) but of course there might be some confusion with amd64/x86_64/arm64...