From: bc@freeuk.com   
      
   On 01/12/2025 00:08, Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   > bart  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Yet what I said is pretty much true. Nobody care about BitInt until they   
   >> became aware of, and now it's must-have.   
   >   
   > Well, you were told many times that regulars here know deficiencies   
   > of C.  "Nobody care about BitInt" in the sense that before _BitInt   
   > people will say "this can not be expressed directly in C, you need   
   > such and such workaround".  People did not loudly complain   
   > knowing that complaints would achive nothing.  But say doing   
   > language comparisons they could note that C lack such a feature.   
   >   
   > There is also a psychological phenomenon: computers even in crude   
   > form are quite useful.  So people were willing to jump hops to   
   > use them.  But when better/easier approach is available people   
   > wery strongly resist going to old ways.  So, once w got _BitInt   
   > you will not be able to take it back.   
      
      
   I've been claiming that _BitInt was a poor fit for a language at the   
   level of C which lacks some more fundamental features.   
      
   But I think I was wrong: the way _BitInt has been devised and presented   
   is actually completely in line with the haphazard way C has evolved up   
   to now.   
      
   I made the mistake in this thread of thinking that people cared about   
   measured language design; obviously if they're using C, they don't.   
      
      unsigned char*       p;   
      uint8_t*             q;   // only exists when stdint.h used   
      unsigned _BitInt(8)* r;   
      char*                s;   
      
   p and q are probably compatible. p and r are not; q and r and not. s is   
   incompatible with p, q, r even if it is unsigned.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)