Hi John,

I'm confused, as I think my first contact with 64-bit (as in data, not
as in cpu) was your windows releases some years ago, which I thought
was labelled csound64.  (I could mistaken on this.)  I consider the
distinction between 32bit and 64bit cpu's to be something more akin to
platform differences and don't think they would require a name
difference in the binary but perhaps for the package name. (i.e.
csound-64.exe for a windows installer that installs a float and double
version of csound labelled csound and csound64).  I think using names
like csoundf and csoundd seems awkward and without precedent; I
understand that that is perhaps a little clearer technically for
naming, but would prefer to use the 64 and non-64 nomenclature as that
seems more easily understood by non-programmers using csound and also
seems already in use.

steven


On 11/10/05, jpff@codemist.co.uk <jpff@codemist.co.uk> wrote:
> Re names, I think of 64 as labelling the 64bit binaries, rather than
> the 64bit data.  I have been using f for floats and d for doubles.
> ==John ffitch
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel
>


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net