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

On 25/03/2025 19:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

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.

A strong sign of this is when there are only two posters (or worse, just one) in a thread branch.
Sometimes a thread branches into unrelated topics, and sometimes it can be interesting to at least some people - even if it is off-topic.  There are some half-dozen contributors in this branch, so it clearly has /some/ interest.

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.
 

Agreed.

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.
 

That can be the case.  I believe Tim intended to be helpful with his post - but I don't think he is always a good judge of what is actually helpful, or how some of his posts will be received.

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.)
 

That seems reasonable to me.  However, unless it is made clear in a post, anything written in comp.lang.c should be seen in reference to C specifically, rather than programming in general.  Thus if I someone here uses the word "function", we assume - unless told otherwise - that they are referring to a C function as described in the C standards, rather than more general CS usage, or a mathematical function, or a wedding party.
(To be clear - I don't think you did stray from the C standard terminology, though you used an outdated term, and I don't think there was any way to misinterpret what you meant.)