From -2770279995417753559 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,d8e6a7de55590f84 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news.alt.net!comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?=" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: About "integral types" Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:44:50 CST Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 79 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <1171823016.006307.259000@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1171823021 32377 127.0.0.1 (18 Feb 2007 18:23:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:23:41 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Original-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu Delivered-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.48.243.97; posting-account=0YhmiQ0AAABRDjD_6coNmBVB3rgPlaOq X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au id l1IIO7id005769 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.std.c++:5621 On 18 Feb., 16:59, gennaro.pr...@yahoo.com (Gennaro Prota) wrote: > In the current working draft (n2134), paragraph 3.9.1/7 states: > > Types bool, char, wchar_t, and the signed and unsigned integer > types are collectively called integral types > > This sentence looks unchanged compared to C++98, but it relies on > other sentences (defining "signed/unsigned integer type") which *did* > change. In particular, the meaning of "signed/unsigned integer type" > now includes implementation-defined extended types. So, is the > sentence quoted above meant to include those ones too? Or was it just > not synchronized with the changes made earlier in the same section? Just my personal 2 Cent: The current meaning (i.e. merging extendend and standard integer types into integer types) *seems* to be intended. Otherwise the standard would need to explicitly speak out the rules concerning valid radices, behavour of unsigned arithmetic (para 4), the three supported representation types (para 7), etc. for the extended types also. Consider also that the integral promotion rules (4.5) have been generalized by delegation to the integer conversion rank (4.13), which *explicitely* rules standard and extended integer types, e.g. "The rank of any standard integer type shall be greater than the rank of any extended integer type with the same size." "The rank of any extended signed integer type relative to another extended signed integer type with the same size is implementation-defined, but still subject to the other rules for determining the integer conversion rank." which implies the wish for uniform handling. This combined handling also leeds to some problems (see some of my currently active postings concerning "basic integral types", the missing IO inclusion of the extended integer types, or the incomplete header synopsis for numeric_limits), most probably just due to oversights in the wording at those places. > One issue here is that we have no longer a standard nomenclature to > denote the set { bool, char, wchar_t } U StandardIntegerTypes, which > is what I was looking for. Yes, this might be a current gap - also for the type traits. May I ask, in which use case you needed this distinction? > (Incidentally, it would have been nice to solve once for all the > error-prone distinction "integer" vs. "integral") In which sense do you mean that? Just the fact of the double existence of this identifiers or some orthographic reasoning? On the other hand there exist the terms "integral constant expression" or "integral promotions/conversions" which *include* enumeration types (although they are excluded from integer/integral types). An interesting option would be to separate the meaning of integral and integer, thereby equating {integral types} = {integer types} U {enumeration types} Greetings from Bremen, Daniel Kr�gler --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]