Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Sat, 03 May 2025 20:03:46 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <86tt616prh.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> <86frj1jpem.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vrv8id$7gto$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 05:03:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2e2a4892b4200c8deca4768c4473856";
	logging-data="1142528"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oQq/EGeq/Uj0fBL83WmM3RZYjort+MHA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cYYT2ObFjTHabjZZwfii6B8Bmek=
	sha1:imsK69+kwUmXwW3dp7g04XaXd58=
Bytes: 4423

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> 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'.

Using a noun as a modifier to another noun is a perfectly normal
English construction.  It's called a noun adjunct.  "Chicken soup"
is an example.  See

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Noun_adjunct

Furthermore, there are other noun-as-modifier constructions in the
original C standard.  The C89/C90 standard has "function types",
"character types", "signed integer types", "unsigned integer
types", "integer constants", and "integer character constants", to
give a few examples.  In fact the C standard is rife with noun-noun
phrases:  "execution environment", "storage boundaries", "byte
address", "bit representation", "language elements", "program
construct", "character set" -- and that's just on page 2.

> 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'.

Both are perfectly fine, as far as what kind of constructions are
allowed in English.  The reason "integral types" is a worse choice
than "integer types" is that "integral types" has a different
meaning, and in particular an inappropriate meaning.  The adjective
"integral" refers to the /value/ of a number, regardless of what
number system it is in.  The noun "integer" used as a modifier refers
to the number system.  An integer number always has an integral
value, but real numbers or complex numbers can have integral values
without being integer numbers.

> 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.

One word being an adjective is a red herring.  Using "integer types"
is better both because it is more consistent with other parts of the
C standard and because the meaning is crisper due to there being
less ambiguity as to what is meant.