🚀 go-pugleaf

lfw@iadfw.net writes:
> Mike Rubenstein wrote:
>  > You've missed a rather subtle point.  Such extensions are legal but
>  > they do not introduce integer types.  The standard defines the signed
>  > integer types as being signed char, short int, int, and long int (and
>  > similarly for unsigned integer types).

> It must be pretty subtle!

Not at all.

> Can you cite specific Clause references ...

It's in 6.1.2.5/3.1.2.5:

# There are four "signed integer types", designated as signed char,
# short int, int, and long int ...

It says four, not four or more.

# For each of the signed integer types, there is a corresponding
# (but different) "unsigned integer type".

It is true that size_t is specified by 6.3.3.4/3.3.3.4 as having an
"unsigned integral type" rather than "unsigned integer type", but the
draft Record of Reponse 2 confirms that these terms were not intended
to be distinguished.

Thus if x is of type size_t, printf ("%ul\n", (unsigned long) x); is
safe under the present standard.
-- 
Mark Brader                     And as in nerdish thought he stood,
msb@sq.com                      the Jargontalk, with awk and grep,
SoftQuad Inc.                   Came geeking through the Cobol wood,
Toronto                         and edlin as it schlepped.
                                   --Larry Colen (after Lewis Carroll)

My text in this article is in the public domain.