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

On 25.03.2025 09:08, David Brown wrote:

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.

One thing I dislike [in this newsgroup] (but have to accept of course)
is that even posts that have a simple, isolated topic become tapeworms
and often contain boring ping-pong discussions. Pedantism is one thing
that fosters the evolution of such CLC-typical threads. I think it's
fine if we are speaking about standards, or specific "C" instances.

But in cases where it's very obviously not specifically related to "C"
I perceive such distracting responses to be more like trollish than
useful.

And in cases where the used terms are clearly understandable (even to
"C"-only nerds) I'd appreciate if we could focus on the topic.

If you stray /too/ far from the C standard terminology, [...]

My strong opinion is that the more general CS topics are best not
discussed in specific terminology. (I'm sure that mileages vary.)

Janis