Why is std::is_object even specialized here? Isn't it always true regardless?

I don't get what you mean. I thought they specify how the type can be used?

Actually you can specify the numeric limits of the mantissa and the exponent. They can be specified as template arguments[0]. So you could do:

      Float<uint8_t, // type of the mantissa
            uint8_t, // type of the exponent
            0,       // lowest possible value of the mantissa
            4095,    // highest possible value of the mantissa
            0,       // lowest possible value of the exponent
            7>       // highest possible value of the exponent

The Float then simulates an unsigned 12bit mantissa and a 3bit exponent. Sure it still takes 16 bytes. But you could create a union with bitfields where you shrink that even further.

[0] https://github.com/clemensmanert/fas/blob/58f9effbe6c13ab334...

    Float<int64_t, int64_t>

Possibly could be combined with C23's _BitInt(N) for the template arguments? I think it's available in clang as a C++ extension.

edit: or I guess you could have your own Tmantissa and Texponent types as custom classes that correctly model _BitInt(N), they don't seem to be required to be builtin integral types.

Rounding: actually it just cuts off. I have not spent much time to think about how to specify and implement the different rounding modes. Maybe some day...

Thanks for the hint to the paper. I also faced these issues. Thus, I provided a constructor which accepts mantissa and exponent as values. Very handy for the unittests.

Somebody wants to use it? :D I thought about something like where people can use it but have to make changed public. I am just curious, what should be changed. But I dont think there is actually a real world use case.

Thank you :)

All creative works are copyrighted by default in the U.S. and any countries adhering to the Berne convention, unless copyrights are explicitly waived (which is not always an option). This is true regardless of what copyright notices exist, so by that standard you shouldn’t look at or comment on anything. ;) But, it’s legal to look at something copyrighted, you just can’t copy & distribute it. Just curious, did you mean that it lacks an open source license and you only look at open source, or was this just a joke that went sideways, or something else?

It's copyrighted, but nothing stops you from looking at it. It's akin to looking a t a mural painted at someone's house. You can also comment as long as you don't post snippets of the code (except for when fair use is applicable).

I suppose you do not read books or watch movies either

Removed it.

And yet...