Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)

On 26/03/2025 00:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 25/03/2025 22:36, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-03-25, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

On 25/03/2025 11:55, Tim Rentsch wrote:

 <snip>
 

The problem is that what was written used the word "integral"
incorrectly.

>
But "integer type" is also a problem. 'Integer' is a noun, not an
adjective. To modify the noun 'type' you need an adjective that
means 'of, pertaining to, or being an integer'. The only
available candidate is 'integral'.

>
How can you post that from of the proximity of the birth place
of the English language?
>
The English language features noun phrases (NPs), and in that
category are found compound nouns.  Compound nouns have a head. The head
is always the rightmost element of the sequence. The other nouns modify
the head as if they were adjectives.

 

Just as all nouns can be verbed, they can also all be adjectived :-)

But 'integral' modifies 'type' because it /is/ an adjective. Hard to see how a charge of 'incorrect' can be justified.
 

Kaz' point is not that "integral type" is grammatically incorrect, but that "integer type" /is/ grammatically correct.  Either could be used.
Tim's argument that "integral type" is wrong is, I would say - based on /my/ everyday English and /my/ mathematical education - invalid.  Either "integer type" or "integral type" could be used, but "integer type" is the more common usage in most programming languages, and is therefore arguably a better choice for the C standards.