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

On 25.03.2025 21:41, Keith Thompson wrote:

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

On 25.03.2025 12:11, Michael S wrote:

[...]

>
Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English?

>
If I speak about numbers I name them so; "numbers", "whole numbers",
"integer numbers", "real numbers" (not "floating point numbers").
Sometimes, depending on context, I use the term "scalar". When I'm
speaking about "integral types" I don't restrict that term to numbers.

 
Real numbers and floating-point numbers have different meanings, both in
C and in general.
 
In C, both integer and floating-point types are "real" (as opposed
to complex or imaginary), though I consider this use of "real" to
be a bit obscure.  [...]

In my native language (and also what I inferred from some posts here
about the English language) I see differences between three domains;
colloquial language, mathematics, and computer terms. These terms are
not (not completely) coherently defined across the domains it seems.
The solution is to try to use the words for the discussion from the
appropriate domain (in both languages). For me there's an additional
practical fact to keep in mind; that what we call "Ganzzahl" (whole
numbers) isn't corresponding to what "whole number" means in English,
as I learned.

Janis