Re: What is "complexifying" C?

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: What is "complexifying" C?
Date	2015-03-17 08:05 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87vbhzzmu3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	<me7jgp$r9e$1@speranza.aioe.org> <me7mv4$hl9$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 16/03/2015 21:55, jacob navia wrote:
>> There are now following number types in C:
>>
>> 1) char (signed and unsigned)
>> 2) short (signed/unsigned)
>> 3) int (signed/unsigned)
>> 4) long (signed/unsigned)
>> 5) long long (signed/unsigned)
>>
>> That makes for 10 integer types
>> 11) float
>> 12) double
>> 13) long double
>> 14) float _Complex
>> 15) double _Complex
>> 16) long double _Complex
>>
>> That makes for 16 different types of numbers
>
> That's one way of looking at it (and you forgot about _Bool).

And plain char, which is distinct from unsigned char and signed char.

And implementation-defined extended integer types -- though I don't know
of any compilers that actually provide them (gcc's __int128 doesn't
conform to the standard's requirements for extended integer types).

> Another way is:
>
> (1) signed integers
> (2) unsigned integers
> (3) floating point
>
> With a range of widths for each (typically four widths for integers,
> and two for floating point). You make the width an attribute rather a
> completely distinct type. Yes, I've left out _Complex, but I doubt
> many people care.

You'd still need to define the existing types somehow if you don't want
to break just about every existing C program.  One possible approach is,
as I think you're suggesting, to have mechanisms for defining signed,
unsigned, and floating-point types by specifying their characteristics,
and then define the existing fundamental types using those mechanisms.

Ada does something like this.

I'm not convinced the fundamental mechanism for defining integer types
could be changed without breaking existing C code, but it's certainly
something to consider when designing new languages.

[...]

>> Operator overloading SIMPLIFIES THE COMPILER AND THE LANGUAGE since it
>> proposes a SINGLE mechanism that would allow users to implement their
>> own number types without adding the enormous complexity of integrating
>> all those numbers into the compiler itself.

Operator overloading by itself doesn't do this.  It is not a type
definition mechanism.  Did I miss a proposal for such a mechanism?
If so, does it cover numeric literals?  Promotion rules?

If I define, for example, my own 96-bit unsigned integer type, how much
code do I have to write in C-with-overloading to make this legal?

    my_uint96 x = 42;
    x += 3;

[...]

>> The reasoning that operator overloading makes C more complex is wrong,
>> actually the opposite is the case. Adding specific types of numbers into
>> the language itself makes the implementations even *more* complex, and
>> forces decisions into the committee that should be actually left to the
>> users!
>
> I can see the problem you're trying to solve, but perhaps there's a
> better way than adding general operator overloads.

I can see the problem he's trying to solve, but operator overloading
alone doesn't solve it.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-16 22:55 +0100
  Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-16 22:55 +0000
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-16 16:41 -0700
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-17 00:05 +0000
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-17 01:12 +0000
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 13:58 -0700
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 07:16 +0100
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 13:50 +0000
        Re: What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 14:59 +0100
          Re: What is "complexifying" C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:22 +0100
            Re: What is "complexifying" C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-17 16:16 +0100
          Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-17 14:39 +0000
          Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-17 15:23 +0000
        Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 15:40 -0700
        Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-18 22:49 +0000
          Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-19 13:55 +0000
            Re: What is "complexifying" C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-19 15:37 +0000
              Re: What is "complexifying" C? jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-19 23:06 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-19 22:38 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-20 19:43 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-03-20 07:49 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 02:29 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-20 21:37 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-20 03:40 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-20 10:18 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-21 00:19 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-20 03:15 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-22 13:51 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-22 15:21 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 00:57 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-22 22:28 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 02:59 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 11:16 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 07:25 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-22 12:06 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 17:01 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-23 03:09 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 01:42 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-22 19:32 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-22 17:34 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-22 20:07 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-23 00:00 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 18:04 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-23 23:22 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-22 14:54 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-23 00:35 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 17:06 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 17:25 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-22 23:33 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 18:01 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 09:41 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 10:23 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-24 07:10 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-23 14:57 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-24 09:36 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-24 08:42 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-24 11:23 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-24 10:52 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-03-29 16:58 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-22 02:38 +0100
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-22 09:11 -0400
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-03-20 06:30 -0500
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-20 10:31 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-20 13:49 +0000
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-20 09:23 -0700
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 08:28 +1300
                Re: What is "complexifying" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-20 01:04 -0700
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 08:05 -0700
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 16:08 +0100
        Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-17 11:09 -0700
          Re: What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 21:37 +0100
            Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-18 00:40 -0500
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-17 15:34 +0000
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-17 15:06 +0000
  Re: What is "complexifying" C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-17 00:05 +0100
  Re: What is "complexifying" C? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-03-16 23:20 +0000
  Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:42 +1300
  Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-17 08:59 -0500
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2015-03-17 15:18 +0100
    Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-17 14:41 +0000
      Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-18 15:47 -0700
        Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-19 00:26 +0000
          Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-19 03:23 -0700
            Re: What is "complexifying"  C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-19 11:19 +0000

csiph-web