home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ix.netcom.com!netnews
- From: miker3@ix.netcom.com (Mike Rubenstein)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.std.c
- Subject: Re: Coding Standards are ignorant
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:17:06 GMT
- Organization: Netcom
- Message-ID: <314db547.242588844@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
- References: <4gum82$14v4@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <MIB.96Mar15170902@gnu.ai.mit.edu> <wyraut5fqq.fsf@dns.bluesky.net> <MIB.96Mar16174948@gnu.ai.mit.edu> <4ifq40$i87@sundog.tiac.net> <MIB.96Mar18105957@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc12-16.ix.netcom.com
- X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 18 11:16:43 AM PST 1996
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
-
- mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell, p/BSG) wrote:
-
- > You are not guaranteed that long is the widest integral type.
-
- Huh? You most certainly are guarantteed that long is the widest
- signed integral type and unsigned long is the widest unsigned integral
- type by ISO 6.1.2.5. This with one caveat -- I am assuming that
- "integer type" and "integral type" have the same meaning, but I'm
- pretty sure I've read that this will be made clear in an upcoming
- technical corrigendum.
-
- Michael M Rubenstein
-