Re: remark on defining size of basic types

From	Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: remark on defining size of basic types
Date	2024-04-05 08:07 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87plv3hmqw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <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>

Show all headers | View raw

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 */

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 01:34 +0200
  Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 00:15 +0000
    Re: remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 03:46 +0200
      Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 02:44 +0000
        Re: remark on defining size of basic types fir <fir@grunge.pl> - 2024-04-04 13:32 +0200
          Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-04 15:15 +0200
            Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-04 12:02 -0400
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-04 20:04 +0300
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 13:10 -0700
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 02:04 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-05 00:43 -0400
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-04-04 19:39 -0400
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-04 22:22 -0700
            Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-04 23:38 +0000
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 02:25 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 00:46 +0000
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-04-05 08:30 +0200
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-05 07:18 +0000
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-04-05 17:19 +0300
                Re: remark on defining size of basic types Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-04-05 08:07 -0700
              Re: remark on defining size of basic types gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-04-05 02:56 +0000

csiph-web