FAQ issue: Guaranteed value ranges of fundamental types?

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Jack Klein:

But whether the C++ standard decided to incorporate the C standard in
its entirety, which it does not, or decided to only incorporate the
third comma on page 47, which it also does not, it not a C language
issue or topical for comp.lang.c at all.

That is literally true but irrelevant.

The main concerns only the C standard. You think the C standard is off-topic
in [clc]? That something else is also mentioned is irrelevant for topicality.

See <url: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html> and
<url: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html> (good
idea to study the other fallacies, too

 

[infobahn]

5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of Integral types.

That section talks about value ranges. Victor Barazov claimed that the
Standard defined those relationships between type *sizes*. That is, he
seemed to mean, for example, that sizeof(short) is guaranteed to be <=
sizeof(int). I can see nothing in 5.2.4.2.1 that requires this. Please
be more explicit. Thank you.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Before posting such remarks, you might want to check up on my
credentials, posting history etc.

I could do, but I wasn't the one making a fool of myself.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

That section talks about value ranges.
Yes

Victor Barazov claimed that the
Standard defined those relationships between type *sizes*.
Yes.

That is, he
seemed to mean, for example, that sizeof(short) is guaranteed to be <=
sizeof(int). I can see nothing in 5.2.4.2.1 that requires this. Please
be more explicit. Thank you.

*shrug*. Only a pedant would argue about the difference. I know, CLC is
full of 'em. SIL.

 

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Mark McIntyre:

* Alf P. Steinbach:
[reinserted]

* Mark McIntyre:

Before posting such remarks, you might want to check up on Jack's
credentials, posting history etc.

[/reinserted]

Before posting such remarks, you might want to check up on my
credentials, posting history etc.

I could do, but I wasn't the one making a fool of myself.

Don't engage in ad hominem attacks, don't misquote other people or quote them
out of context, follow your own advice, and you may become a happy person.

 

[infobahn]

*shrug*. Only a pedant would argue about the difference. I know, CLC is
full of 'em. SIL.

There's right, and there's wrong, and there's a grey area. The
original claim was slap bang in the middle of the "wrong", and
there's nothing "pedantic" about saying so. But, even if there
is, I'd rather be pedantic than wrong.

 

[Julie]

*shrug*. Only a pedant would argue about the difference. I know, CLC is
full of 'em. SIL.

What is "SIL"?

 

[Michael Mair]

What is "SIL"?

Presumably, "such is life".


Cheers
Michael

 

[Mark McIntyre]

What is "SIL"?

Such Is Life.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Don't engage in ad hominem attacks, don't misquote other people or quote them
out of context,

I did none of these things, but you did. Physician, heal thyself.

follow your own advice, and you may become a happy person.

I'm already happy thanks.

 

[Dave Thompson]

Such Is Life.

Perhaps ironically it is also System Implementation Language, the term
that was common around the time C was created for the category in
which it falls along with other languages that have more or less
fallen by the wayside like BLISS, PL/M, and the MODULAs.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net