16 bit real numbers or 128 bit real numbers - Place Holder

128-bit as something more accurate than 64-bit. Assume underlying hardware support. These can be fudged with 80-bit reals. I would run a mile from double/double.

16-bit for use with AI/ML applications or more. Assume underlying hardware support for at least read and write into memory. Arithmetic operations are handled with real(32)?

Low Priority discussion point only. Will migrate to an Issue as it firms to a possible reality.

It looks like we have Higher precision float · Issue #14801 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub
for 128 bit reals, but I'm not seeing something similar for 16 bit reals.

I think it would be fine to open an issue for 16 bit reals now, even if
it's a low priority at the moment. It'll make it easier for other
people to find it, or for us to find it in the future when we go looking
for related information.


1 Like

Yes. Michael created that on my behalf

Two things.

As you say, it does not include 16 bit float. Although I have little interest in them for most of my/our work today, I think the AI/ML community will probably want them sooner rather than later. As you suggest could be a wise move. The reasons driving a real(16) are very different to those driving a real(128).

The subject of the 128-bit issue might be better change to

**real**(128) - higher precision (128 bit) floating point

A bit long winded. Maybe change that to something more concise??

I was unsure whether such reasons need to clutter the issue itself so I raised it here.

Thanks for your suggestion on the title -- I've updated it.

Regarding cluttering issues, we can always hide comments if they are resolved and not relevant for people reading the issue in the future (e.g. if you had commented on the issue with a suggestion to change the tite, I probably would have done that).

Thanks for the advice. I had forgotten that.

That said, who gets notified of that change to the issue?

I don't think Github sends notifications for edits and renaming. I
think it's mostly comments, assigning someone, opening and closing the
issue, and tags if you had notifications for comments turned off.


So how do you highlight that there is new activity on a past issue? Thanks.

I don't know of a way to highlight new edits (and as a result when trying to notify people, I'll make a comment that describes how I edited something, if that is relevant). I don't view something like the title update I just did as warranting notifying people. That said, you can see title changes and what edits were done to an issue or comment from the issue.

If you want to get an email when a new comment appears on an issue, you can subscribe to that issue (or to the project, if you really want a fire-hose). You automatically get subscribed to issues you create or where somebody @-mentions you. You can configure what GitHub does to notify you when a subscribed issue changes. I have it email me but you could alternatively use the Notifications button in the upper right when you are logged in to GitHub. See also Managing subscriptions and notifications on GitHub - GitHub Docs .

So, the way I manage it, is I get an email for new issues (we have a new issue emailer that does this), and I subscribe to issues that I want to follow, which causes me to get an email when someone comments.

1 Like

I similarly add a new comment to an issue if/when I make substantial edits to the title, OP, or a previous comment to push a notification to those who may be subscribed. I don't do this for edits that feel smaller / more cosmetic / or that I do almost immediately after making the original post.

OK. So is it those who have posted to an issue plus those mentoned with @ who get notified, or is the @ mention only relevant for an individual post to an issue? Thanks.

All the following is my understanding, which may be incorrect/incomplete:

Anyone who is subscribed to an issue will get notified about changes to it, assuming their notification settings are set up to do so.

Commenting on an issue subscribes the commenter to it by default. I believe you're correct that @-mentioning someone also subscribes them to the issue by default, but I'm less confident in that, and also don't know whether there are ways to opt out of that behavior as an individual.

It is also possible to unsubscribe from an issue at any time; so there's no guarantee that a previous commenter/@-mentioned person will be notified. And AFAIK, there's no way to see who is or is not subscribed to a given issue.


1 Like