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

On 25/03/2025 11:55, Tim Rentsch wrote:

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.

But "integer type" is also a problem. 'Integer' is a noun, not an adjective. To modify the noun 'type' you need an adjective that means 'of, pertaining to, or being an integer'. The only available candidate is 'integral'.
I'll cheerfully accept "integer type" because, though clumsy, it's standardese. But if we're using English it's wrong to reject "integral type"; 'adjective noun' is far closer to the spirit of the English language than 'noun noun'. At least until such time as the backroom boffins come up with a better adjective for 'of, pertaining to, or being an integer', I stand with a foot planted firmly within each camp.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within