Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Robert Dewar wrote: For another take, though the Ada standard extensively uses the word integral, it does prefer integer type, by analogy with array type, record type etc, where no adjective is available. But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might as well standardize on that when talking about C or C++. C99 uses integer type. This was adopted consistently following DR#067 pointing out the variation in C90 between integer type and integral type. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_067.html -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Am 08.07.2010 00:56, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer. Thats correct but not all non native speaker know that. The word integer is more common. Cheers Nils
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On 8 July 2010 07:12, Nils Schlemminger wrote: Am 08.07.2010 00:56, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer. Thats correct but not all non native speaker know that. The word integer is more common. But in the C++ standard integral expression is more common.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Am 08.07.2010 10:49, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On 8 July 2010 07:12, Nils Schlemminger wrote: Am 08.07.2010 00:56, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer. Thats correct but not all non native speaker know that. The word integer is more common. But in the C++ standard integral expression is more common. Ok point. But shall the writers of the C++ standard read the document or all developers on the world? Trust me not all c++ programmers had read the standard.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Nils Schlemminger wrote: Am 08.07.2010 10:49, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On 8 July 2010 07:12, Nils Schlemminger wrote: Am 08.07.2010 00:56, schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer. Thats correct but not all non native speaker know that. The word integer is more common. But in the C++ standard integral expression is more common. Ok point. But shall the writers of the C++ standard read the document or all developers on the world? Trust me not all c++ programmers had read the standard. I think integral expression is perfectly clear, and preferable
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
But in the C++ standard integral expression is more common. integral is an adjective and integer is a noun. integer expression, though gramatically wrong (or, at best, an elision of two nouns), is perfectly clear and unambiguous, whereas integral expression, though gramatically correct, hits some people as built-in expression and trips others up as an unfamiliar and rare word whose meaning is uncertain - for what gain? Personally, I like integral expression, but then I'm a native-English speaker and UK academic with an extended vocabulary. For world-class dovumentation, it depends whether it's more important to be clear and unambiguous to all readers or an object lesson in type-correct advanced English. I'd say our friend has pointed out a tiny place where it could be made a little more effective in the first of these purposes. M
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
... I only want to add - I said this to the OP in private email too - that we also have in widespread use expressions like 'integral constant' and even 'is_integral' (standardized in the C++0x library). Thus I don't see the point of changing now, after so many years, that specific integral in the docs where most users are likely to find *many* more integral in documentation elsewhere, in the C++ standards, etc. Paolo.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Paolo Carlini wrote: ... I only want to add - I said this to the OP in private email too - that we also have in widespread use expressions like 'integral constant' and even 'is_integral' (standardized in the C++0x library). Thus I don't see the point of changing now, after so many years, that specific integral in the docs where most users are likely to find *many* more integral in documentation elsewhere, in the C++ standards, etc. Integral is a perfectly good word, and furthermore I think it is better usage to choose the appropriate adjective when one is available, rather than a noun serving as an adjective. The latter is fine when there is no convenient adjective, but in this case, integral is a smoother and more natural style. For another take, though the Ada standard extensively uses the word integral, it does prefer integer type, by analogy with array type, record type etc, where no adjective is available. But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might as well standardize on that when talking about C or C++.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Quoting Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com: But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might as well standardize on that when talking about C or C++. I think it also helps clarity to speak of integral types. I.e. in the C family of languages, 'char' is an integral type, but you may not use the 'int' keyword for a 'char' declaration.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
Joern Rennecke wrote: Quoting Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com: But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might as well standardize on that when talking about C or C++. I think it also helps clarity to speak of integral types. I.e. in the C family of languages, 'char' is an integral type, but you may not use the 'int' keyword for a 'char' declaration. that's actually a good *technical* argument for systematically using integral instead of integer. If we have a glossary somewhere, we could even have an entry for integral type that pointed out that this includes char.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On 8 July 2010 13:45, Robert Dewar wrote: Joern Rennecke wrote: Quoting Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com: But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might as well standardize on that when talking about C or C++. I think it also helps clarity to speak of integral types. I.e. in the C family of languages, 'char' is an integral type, but you may not use the 'int' keyword for a 'char' declaration. that's actually a good *technical* argument for systematically using integral instead of integer. If we have a glossary somewhere, we could even have an entry for integral type that pointed out that this includes char. There's a Spelling, terminology and markup section in http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html (Hoorah, I'm glad some good will come of this otherwise pretty pointless thread!)
Error in GCC documentation page
On the page http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html the term integral is used twice in the section Built-in Function: long __builtin_expect (long exp, long c), where what is intended is integer. Trevor Smedley
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On 07/07/2010 08:02 PM, Trevor Smedley wrote: On the page http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html the term integral is used twice in the section Built-in Function: long __builtin_expect (long exp, long c), where what is intended is integer. I'm not a native English speaker, and would like to know more about that use, but can't be *that* bad if you can find it also in the ISO C++ Standard ;) Paolo.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On 7 July 2010 19:12, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 07/07/2010 08:02 PM, Trevor Smedley wrote: On the page http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html the term integral is used twice in the section Built-in Function: long __builtin_expect (long exp, long c), where what is intended is integer. I'm not a native English speaker, and would like to know more about that use, but can't be *that* bad if you can find it also in the ISO C++ Standard ;) The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer.
Re: Error in GCC documentation page
On 07/07/2010 23:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 7 July 2010 19:12, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 07/07/2010 08:02 PM, Trevor Smedley wrote: On the page http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html the term integral is used twice in the section Built-in Function: long __builtin_expect (long exp, long c), where what is intended is integer. I'm not a native English speaker, and would like to know more about that use, but can't be *that* bad if you can find it also in the ISO C++ Standard ;) The usage is correct in standardese and English. My dictionary gives one definition of integral as denoting a number that is an integer. OTOH, the more common everyday meaning of integral is built-in. Which in the context might be a little confusing! :) cheers, DaveK
