Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Beginner....Decimal/Octal converter help
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 07:36:57 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <86pmfym392.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <8ffd982c-2e82-4caa-9256-ec17be2efe56n@googlegroups.com> <875yhv30nu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfi6jk$1f9ct$1@dont-email.me> <87zgf714zc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfil39$1h9u$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tfkj2l$1t7f3$1@dont-email.me> <8735cy0wt4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfl0im$1vu1b$1@dont-email.me> <87r10hzn19.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfnh5k$29dcu$1@dont-email.me> <87mtb4wq4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfnnob$1d8r$1@gioia.aioe.org> <875yhswfiv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfpm5j$2idls$1@dont-email.me> <8735cvtryu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfpvun$tdk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87tu5bs282.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfqhcm$2l21g$1@dont-email.me> <87y1umr9k7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfs3ci$2rvtt$1@dont-email.me> <87zgf2oxfn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e4a07c6eb40a7dcf36ed28254bbf399a"; logging-data="3147276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18s/A/9h54ZeiZbDD6zWFrnlfG33eS4N3M="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2IqcRpmiJ2cKcXb9tHRMQiRKw0s= sha1:QJGEP3Xc+s34TiFjR8YT+YfyS/w=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:167716

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> Discussions like these make you think (well, they make /me/ think - I
>> can't really answer for anyone else!).  And if we think, with an open
>> mind, then it should result in a better understanding of alternative
>> ideas and opinions.  That does not mean changing stances, or agreeing
>> with other people's arguments.  But it does mean that when you see a
>> "uint32_t" variable in code that is not dictated by external forces,
>> you might be less inclined to think it is "knee-jerk programming" and
>> more inclined to consider that it might have been chosen carefully and
>> intentionally instead of "uint_fast32_t" or "uint_least32_t".
>
> Can you summarise your view so we can wrap this up?  What is the
> thinking that supports the choice of an intN_t type rather than an
> int_(least|fast)N_t type (where there is no external driving force
> behind the choice)?
>
> A lot has been written by several contributors (I seem to be alone in
> having the option I stated) but I can't extract the core reasoning from
> all the posts.

Not alone.  As best I can recall I have silently nodded
agreement with everything you have said in this subthread.