On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 11:42:46AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 6/7/21 10:09 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-06-07 at 18:23 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > +#define HECTO 100L > > > +#define DECA 10L > > > > Should it be DECA or DEKA or both? > > > > https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/metric-si-prefixes > > deka Example: dekameter da 10**1 Ten > > > > > +#define DECI 10L > > > +#define CENTI 100L > > > +#define MILLI 1000L > > > +#define MICRO 1000000L > > > +#define NANO 1000000000L > > > +#define PICO 1000000000000LL > > > +#define FEMTO 1000000000000000LL > > > > IMO: Might as well include all the prefixes up to 10**24 > > > > EXA ZETTA YOTTA, ATTA ZEPTO YOCTO > > > > And how do people avoid using MILLI for KILO, MEGA for MICRO, etc... > > The compiler won't care but usage could look odd. > > I find this patch creates more confusion than solves a real problem > (typo where one zero is missing or one extra) and adds potentially needless > churn. For instance I don't assume much use for the HECTO now or in the > future. > > How about if absolutely necessary just adding only KILO, MEGA and GIGA and > questionable defines only after when the real needs arises and can see does > "1/1000L" etc define cause any troubles to real calculations? You are probably looking to the I2C codebase, while I based my choice on other sightings. I agree about the usage count for DECI/CENTI et al., but having them defined targets at least the following: 1) occupies namespace so if we need them in the future there will be no ambiguity; 2) provides a name for multipliers for the code to read and understand the semantics better. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
