Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: remark on defining size of basic types
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 08:07:03 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <87plv3hmqw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <uukp2q$2v3$1@i2pn2.org> <uukrfp$7l0f$2@dont-email.me>
	<uul0q6$c4i$1@i2pn2.org> <uul461$d88r$1@dont-email.me>
	<uum354$1l27$1@i2pn2.org> <uum95f$lr8o$1@dont-email.me>
	<uundl9$ugsb$2@dont-email.me> <uungdk$v8gp$1@dont-email.me>
	<uunhls$vbtu$2@dont-email.me> <uuo5pp$17d43$1@dont-email.me>
	<uuo8jg$183rs$1@dont-email.me> <20240405171926.000067da@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:07:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fec0c29a47b22dfbebf6304061a8ab80";
	logging-data="1524879"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QthqRYNtlTu6sft0MoZrK"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+hV6Mwk3+M2MRMCMOUhaER1lk68=
	sha1:Ew6eWcf9yNomUbKUNscpkjkjP7Q=
Bytes: 3241

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 07:18:09 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:30:16 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> 
>> > For the first question I thought you were referring to old Fortran
>> > versions ...  
>> 
>> I did say “has”, not “had”.
>> 
>> > Yes, but I read that 'KIND' specification as a readable variant of
>> > the old syntax ...  
>> 
>> It’s parameterizable. That means it is easy to change the precision
>> of the type right through your code just by altering one definition.
>> 
>> Also, KIND participates in function overloading. That requires it to
>> be compile-time constant. There are also LEN parameters, which can be 
>> dynamic, but can only be used to size arrays and strings.
>
> I still think that Janis asked correct questions and that you answered
> misleading answers.
> I had never read the Fortran-2003 Standard, however I will be very
> surprised if it mandates support for integer types wider than 64 bits
> (or 18 decimal digits). I would not be surprised if hard mandate is
> even lower, may be only 9 digits.
> Also I would be surprised if there are implementations that support
> integers that are wider than 128 bits (38 digits).

I think this was the source of some confusion :

    On 05.04.2024 01:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 15:15:26 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
    >
    >> Sometimes it's useful to have an unbounded or parameterized integral
    >> data type available ...
    >
    > Interestingly, Fortran (of all things) has that.

As far as I can tell, Fortran has parameterized integral types, but not
unbounded integral types.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */