Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcrware!jejones From: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Cardinal numbers or unsigned int.. Message-ID: <1675@mcrware.UUCP> Date: 1 Jun 90 10:27:13 GMT References: <1990May25.193305.14920@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2875@demo.COM> Reply-To: jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) Distribution: comp Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa Lines: 22 In article <2875@demo.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes: >I think this is something Pascal and Modula-2 got wrong. Calling a machine >word an `INTEGER' or `CARDINAL' and a floating-point number a `REAL' is a lie. >I know what an integer is, and when you add two positive ones you better get >another positive one. Similarly, real numbers obey associativity and similar >laws which floating-point numbers do not.... > >At least C is honest about its type names. Demand `truth in advertising'. Ah, but...I know what an integer is, too, and the whole reason for defining integers is to get negative numbers. Doesn't this make "unsigned int" an oxymoron? It would've been nice to have "nat" (for "natural number") instead; not only is it truth in advertising, but it fits in with the brevity-uber- alles nature of C (at least pre-ANSI, otherwise we'd have "vol" instead of "volatile" :-). :-) :-) :-) :-), of course! James Jones (Opinions? Can a company be said to have an opinion? Assuming it can, I know of no company whose opinions have any correlation with mine.)