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

On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On 25.03.2025 05:56, Tim Rentsch wrote: 

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
 
[...]
 

When I started with "C" or C++ there were not only 8-bit
multiples defined for the integral types;  [...] 

 
In C the correct phrase is integer types, not integral types. 

>
My apologies if I'm using language independent terms. I'm confident,
though, that most people (obviously you as well) understood the
term. 

 
You are 100% correct. You made it clear that you're referring
to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions
that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C,
if not earlier.
 
In ISO 9899:1990, we have this:
 
  6.1.2.5 Types
 
  [...]
 
  "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types. and the
  enumerated types are collectively called integral types."
                                           ^^^^^^^^
 
The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99.  However,
"integral types" remains part of C history.  C90 is a still valid,
historic and historically significant dialect of C.
 
Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types"
is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that
has been formally superseded since C90. However, it is a term
used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal
discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering.
 
The word has two pronunciations in English. When the emphasis is on
the first syllalble: IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the
opposite of a calculus derivative. The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1,
etc. in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an
integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from. In math
and CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z.