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

On 25/03/2025 08:45, Janis Papanagnou 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.
 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.
 

Most of the audience here, I believe, are usually happy when it is obvious what you mean.  But many here can be very pedantic - that's a very useful trait in its place, and annoying when out of place.
If you stray /too/ far from the C standard terminology, then readers have to start making assumptions about what you mean, and then it is worth checking or correcting.  And then there are terms that can have very specific meanings in C that don't quite match up with the word in general language, such as "constant" - then it can again be worth the effort to be precise.
I personally can't see this being a case where there is anything to be gained from correcting your language.  I'm fairly sure that you already know that the C terminology is "integer types", or would quickly see that in any situation where that were relevant (such as when searching in a pdf of the C standards).  And I can't imagine anyone misunderstood you, or had to waste significant cognitive effort to see what you meant.

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'.[*]
 

Yes.  Here, Tim is using "integral" to mean a number (in the mathematical sense) that happens to be an integer (in the mathematical sense).  It is a characteristic of the value, independent of any C type used to represent it, and it turns up a fair number of times in the C standards (mostly in connection with floating point library functions).

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

I'm guessing Tim is trying to be helpful by showing you the difference between the words "integer" and "integral".