> ('Naming: "algebraic" is not very descriptive of what this does since the operations themselves are algebraic.' :D) Okay, the floating point operations are l

> ('Naming: "algebraic" is not very descriptive of what this does since the operations themselves are algebraic.' :D) Okay, the floating point operations are literally algebraic (they form an algebra) but they don't follow some common algebraic properties like associativity. The linked tracking issue itself acknowledges that: > Naming: "algebraic" is not very descriptive of what this does since the operations themselves are algebraic. Also this comment https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136469#issuecomment-2727298355 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136469#issuecomment... > > On that note I added an unresolved question for naming since algebraic isn't the most clear indicator of what is going on. > > I think it is fairly clear. The operations allow algebraically justified optimizations, as-if the arithmetic was real arithmetic. > > I don't think you're going to find a clearer name, but feel free to provide suggestions. One alternative one might consider is real_add, real_sub, etc. Then retorted here https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136469#issuecomment-2727298355 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136469#issuecomment... > These names suggest that the operations are more accurate than normal, where really they are less accurate. One might misinterpret that these are infinite-precision operations (perhaps with rounding after a whole sequence of operations). > > The actual meaning isn't that these are real number operations, it's quite the opposite: they have best-effort precision with no strict guarantees. > > I find "algebraic" confusing for the same reason. > > How about approximate_add, approximate_sub? And the next comment > Saying "approximate" feels imperfect, as while these operations don't promise to produce the exact IEEE result on a per-operation basis, the overall result might well be more accurate algebraically. E.g.: > > (...) So there's a discussion going on about the naming