From: Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
      
   bart  writes:   
   [...]   
   > Yet over the past decades nobody has been screaming because they   
   > couldn't have a 31-bit or 65-bit numeric type. But now suddenly   
   > EVERYONE wants to be able to do that, and on huge numbers!   
      
   No.   
      
   Nobody here, myself included, is "screaming" about 31-bit or 65-bit   
   integer types (other than you).   
      
   The current edition of the C standard, C23, mandates support for   
   bit-precise integer types.  Support for 31-bit types is mandatory.   
   Support for 65-bit types is optional (BITINT_MAXWIDTH can be as   
   small as 64).   
      
   Most of us, myself included, have been discussing this feature: how   
   it's defined, how it can be used, how compilers can implement it.   
   Most of us are more interested in discussing C as it's defined,   
   and how to use it, than in advocacy for or against new features.   
      
   I have never advocated for or against bit-precise integer types.   
   I'm not sure how long I've known about them.  I observe that they   
   are now a standard part of the C language.  It is a fact that any   
   conforming C23 compiler must support _BitInt types with odd sizes.   
      
   You argue that bit-precise types with sizes that don't meet your   
   personal criteria are silly and should be forbidden by the language.   
   Well, they aren't, and that's not going to change.  I understand that   
   you think bit-precise types should have been defined less flexibly;   
   how many times do you need to repeat it?   
      
   --   
   Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com   
   void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)