Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Is this really necessary
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 12:38:03 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <86o89qwpus.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <s9fl3f$ha7$1@dont-email.me> <seqoel$s5l$1@gioia.aioe.org> <serkdg$jh8$1@dont-email.me> <serkpm$36i$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ses4ec$si1$1@dont-email.me> <8635rh1m2i.fsf@linuxsc.com> <inffroF5l5hU1@mid.individual.net> <86bl63zs5l.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sf2ljh$14ur$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86y297x7fz.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sf3cu8$1hga$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86tujuy93d.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sf3fb0$m7g$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sf3kgp$kh9$1@dont-email.me> <sf568p$1o4o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sf5s5l$j75$1@dont-email.me> <874kbti4yp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86a6lkxr7s.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zgtjhizw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86sfzax0ur.fsf@linuxsc.com> <sfbpbm$rqj$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c589d20b17911d48db84f332d8e93ec2"; logging-data="30542"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oYcyfe4rrYf1FdEl6c6Zi85UGSZN7hvs="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mImrFDBpWBUTTMUv0T/qxn0txM4= sha1:0oTBZzW6syekV0xD0EDfFROHW00=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:80901

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> writes:

> On 15 Aug 2021 16:02, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> [snip] >> Whether the C++ standard incorporates the entire C standard or
>>
>>> not, it doesn't *need* to incorporate section 6 -- and as of
>>> C++17, that wording was removed.
>>
>> Apparently nothing *needs* to be incorporated, since in C++17
>> nothing was.  It's an editorial choice, nothing more, and has no
>> effect on the C++ language being defined.
>
> The minimum ranges for integer types, except `char`, are not specified
> explicitly in the C++ standard, and as I recall there's not even a
> specific reference to the C standard for that.  Yet these ranges are
> provided by the C standard.  Any reasonable interpretation has to make
> that happen.

My point is that no part of the C standard needs to be *incorporated*
for that reliance to take place.  Any dependency on the restrictions
of types in C can be (and apparently has been) worked into the C++
standard without doing any "incorporating" of the C standard.