Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 11:21:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vt5hmo$e5qu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vsj1m8$1f8h2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrqsh$qhuu$2@solani.org> <vt38i9$29prg$1@dont-email.me>
 <87h62ys4w5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vt488v$35hh3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt4n3d$3e8hi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 12:21:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="86cd0c292c528f4b59336ead25869004";
	logging-data="464734"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+LeyiROVZfxjjPU78wSfpI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FVawNSWlw9Bkps8XJToca9slEOM=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vt4n3d$3e8hi$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3291

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?