Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 09/04/2025 03:47, James Kuyper wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 08/04/2025 22:46, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

...>> Apparently the author of the chart chose to include types that are

defined by the core language, not by the library.

>
So here you're finally admitteding they are a different rank.

 The core language and the library are equal in rank, both being
different parts of any implementation of C.

So do you are agree or disagree with the following table I posted yesterday?
If yes, do you still claim they are equal in rank? And if so, why are the stdint.h types not on that chart?
-----------------------------
Differences between 'unsigned long long int' and 'uint64_t' up to C23:
                          uint64_t   unsigned long long int
Works without header     No         Yes
Literal suffix           No         Yes (ULL etc)
Dedicated printf format  No         Yes (%llu)
Dedicated scanf format   No         Yes (whatever that might be)
sizeof() might not be 8  No         Maybe
Reserved word[1]         No         Yes
Outside lexical scope[2] No         Yes
Incompatible with
  unsigned long int       No         Yes
-----------------------------
(Original, with notes, posted yesterday at 16:47 GMT)

Actually I can't quite see the purpose of this chart, why it has to be
so complicated (even with bits missing) or who it is for.

 Every category shown on that chart has rules that are apply only to
types in that category. The chart is for people who have not yet
memorized the relationships shown, and who need to understand the rules
that apply to each category. That clearly doesn't apply to you, since
understanding the rules would make it more difficult for you to complain
about them.

You don't think it is odd for the a language which is supposed to be famous for its simplicity and unsophisticated types to have such a complicated chart? There is is no way it could be simplified?