Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 05:02:45 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <86bjtpjp22.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vrd77d$3nvtf$2@dont-email.me> <868qp1ra5f.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrdhok$47cb$2@dont-email.me> <20250319115550.0000676f@yahoo.com> <vreuj1$1asii$4@dont-email.me> <vreve4$19klp$2@dont-email.me> <20250319201903.00005452@yahoo.com> <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrh1br$35029$2@dont-email.me> <LRUCP.2$541.0@fx47.iad> <vrh71t$3be42$1@dont-email.me> <KFVCP.594649$SZca.498578@fx13.iad> <vrhb77$3frk8$1@dont-email.me> <vrru8f$174q6$1@dont-email.me> <86o6xpk8sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrtmu4$2s1q2$1@dont-email.me> <20250325011327.41@kylheku.com> <20250325131110.000056bd@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:02:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dc97818a680e22f6747ff94516233a05";
	logging-data="3440865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/27nbtlr1WXFMY/axkg6LDz6fGVsV1rA4="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pfsjhOQCJTGdgov2X+BWN/8tz5w=
	sha1:E3cjkpsno9Pa+TA9HMmDiNzvH6I=

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:39:04 -0000 (UTC)
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-03-25, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
>> 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.
>>
>> You are 100% correct.  You made it clear that you're referring
>> to a time /when you started with C/. I remember from past discussions
>> that this was sufficiently long ago that it was ISO C90 or ANSI C,
>> if not earlier.
>>
>> In ISO 9899:1990, we have this:
>>
>>   6.1.2.5 Types
>>
>>   [...]
>>
>>   "The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types.  and the
>>   enumerated types are collectively called integral types."
>>                                            ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> The integral types were renamed between C90 and C99.  However,
>> "integral types" remains part of C history.  C90 is a still valid,
>> historic and historically significant dialect of C.
>>
>> Even today, it is misleading to say that "integral types"
>> is an incorrect way to talk about C. It's a terminology that
>> has been formally superseded since C90.  However, it is a term
>> used in computer science and mathematics, and fine for informal
>> discussions that don't revolve around language-lawyering.
>>
>> The word has two pronunciations in English.  When the emphasis is on
>> the first syllalble:  IN-tgrl, it is a noun which refers to the
>> opposite of a calculus derivative.  The integral of x^2 from 0 to 1,
>> etc.  in-TE-gral is an adjective, which is is a common words---it's an
>> integral part of everyday English, meaning indivisible from.  In math
>> and CS it is used for indicating that some quantity is in Z.
>
> Wouldn't the term 'whole numbers' be preferred in everyday English?

"Whole numbers" are all non-negative.

"Integers" include values less than zero.