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

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.

I understand that the "C" standard may have consistently been using
another naming. - Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled that general (language
independent) terms are considered "incorrect" by the audience here.

The constant 3.0, for example, has an integral value, but it
does not have an integer value.

The literal "3.0" is usually not representing the value of an integral
[data] type like 'int'.[*]

(You are speaking about "integral value" here, I was speaking about
the "integral [data] types". Not sure why you shifted the goalpost.)

Janis

[*] For languages that don't have a distinguished integral numeric
data type, or that do implicit coercion, things may be different of
course.