This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
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++.