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

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]

Returning to the original question, the point is that,
when considered as adjectives, "integer" and "integral"
mean very different things.

They can, but they don't necessarily do so, and it's important to
acknowledge that common usage is not consistent.

C90 referred to "integral types".  C99 changed that to "integer
types".  C++ defines "integral types" and then defines "integer
types" as a synonym.  Both terms are valid.

I prefer to use the terms defined by the language standard when
discussing a given language, but in practice "integer" and "integral"
are used synonymously.  The reference to "integral types" in this
thread was probably worth a brief note, but it was absolutely clear
what was meant.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */