From: marb...@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On Saturday, 3 December 2022 at 22:52:17 UTC, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:   
   > Instead weird constructs like   
   > "long long" for int64_t have been introduced, while "int int" stays   
   > equivalent to "int".   
      
   (Sorry, not following this thread till I noticed "long long" :-) )   
   Another feature C's pinched off Algol 68?   
   (When I designed and partly-implemented a language in 2006, I called my types   
   "s8", "u8", "s16", and "u16". (That's as far as I got.) From nearly 40 years   
   of C programming, I've concluded that having "int" be the "natural" size of   
   integer is more of a liability than an asset.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)