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:

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>

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.

>
The problem is that what was written used the word "integral"
incorrectly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integral

    5 *Arithmetic.* pertaining to or being an integer; not fractional.

[...]

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

>
In C the word is constant, not literal;  literals are something
else.

The next edition of the C standard, following C23, will use the terms
"integer literal", "floating literal", and "character literal".
See the N3301 draft, for example.

[...]

One more time:  it is INTEGER data type, not INTEGRAL data type.

I believe we all heard you the 10th time.

[...]

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