🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4eiua2$9u@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:
> I have always thought that type size_t must be defined as one of
> the standard unsigned integer types: unsigned [char | short | int | long].
> I don't find wording in the ISO standard requiring that, however.
> Sections 7.1.6 and 6.3.4 say it is an "unsigned integral type", a term
> I don't find defined. "Integer type" is defined, but not "integral type".

In response to a Defect Report, the Committee noted that the terms
``integer type'' and ``integral type'' are used interchangeably and
should be considered synonymous.  I believe they also expressed an
intent to eliminate the inconsistency in the next revision.  The
response to another Defect Report noted that the list of integer types
is exhaustive and may not be extended, thus size_t must indeed be one of
the standard types.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
I don't think that question was very hypothetical at all. -- Calvin