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

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

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formally superseded since C90.  [...]

Definitely not.  Neither "integer" nor "integral" are terms defined
by the C standard;  rather they are meant to be read in the sense of
ordinary English.  The word "integral" was not superseded by the C99
standard, but _corrected_ because "integral" is wrong and "integer"
is right, in the contexts in which those words are used.  What was
done is just like what was done when "one's complement" was changed
to "ones' complement" - the change was made to reflect correct
English usage.