Jim Hester
2017-Jun-16 19:37 UTC
[Rd] R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
The relevant sections of the C standard are http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/5.2.4.2.1.html, which specifies that C ints are only guaranteed to be 16 bits, C long ints at least 32 bits in size, as Peter mentioned. Also http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.4.4.1.html specifies l or L as the suffix for a long int constants. However R does define integers as `int` in it's source code, so use of L is not strictly correct if a compiler uses 16 bit int types. I guess this ambiguity is why the `int32_t` typedef exists. On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, William Dunlap via R-devel < r-devel at r-project.org> wrote:> "Writing R Extensions" says "int": > > R storage mode C type FORTRAN type > logical int* INTEGER > integer int* INTEGER > double double* DOUBLE PRECISION > complex Rcomplex* DOUBLE COMPLEX > character char** CHARACTER*255 > raw unsigned char* none > > Bill Dunlap > TIBCO Software > wdunlap tibco.com > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Wikipedia claims that C ints are still only guaranteed to be at least 16 > bits, and longs are at least 32 bits. So no, R's integers are long. > > > > -pd > > > > > On 16 Jun 2017, at 20:20 , William Dunlap via R-devel < > r-devel at r-project.org> wrote: > > > > > > But R "integers" are C "ints", as opposed to S "integers", which are C > > > "long ints". (I suppose R never had to run on ancient hardware with 16 > bit > > > ints.) > > > > > > Bill Dunlap > > > TIBCO Software > > > wdunlap tibco.com > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Yihui Xie <xie at yihui.name> wrote: > > > > > >> Yeah, that was what I heard from our instructor when I was a graduate > > >> student: L stands for Long (integer). > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Yihui > > >> -- > > >> https://yihui.name > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Serguei Sokol < > sokol at insa-toulouse.fr > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> Le 16/06/2017 ? 17:54, Henrik Bengtsson a ?crit : > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm just curious (no complaints), what was the reason for choosing > the > > >>>> letter 'L' as a suffix for integer constants? Does it stand for > > >>>> something (literal?), is it because it visually stands out, ..., or > no > > >>>> specific reason at all? > > >>> > > >>> My guess is that it is inherited form C "long integer" type (contrary > to > > >>> "short integer" or simply "integer") > > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_data_types > > >> > > >> ______________________________________________ > > >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > -- > > Peter Dalgaard, Professor, > > Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School > > Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark > > Phone: (+45)38153501 > > Office: A 4.23 > > Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Prof Brian Ripley
2017-Jun-17 05:40 UTC
[Rd] R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
On 16/06/2017 20:37, Jim Hester wrote:> The relevant sections of the C standard are > http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/5.2.4.2.1.html, which specifies that CThere is more than one C standard, but that is none of them.> ints are only guaranteed to be 16 bits, C long ints at least 32 bits in > size, as Peter mentioned. Also http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.4.4.1.html > specifies l or L as the suffix for a long int constants. > > However R does define integers as `int` in it's source code, so use of L is > not strictly correct if a compiler uses 16 bit int types. I guess this > ambiguity is why the `int32_t` typedef exists.However, R checks that the compiler uses 32-bit ints in its build (configure and src/main/arithmetic.c) and documents that in R-admin . In any case, the C standard does not apply to the R language. Also, int32_t - postdates R (it was introduced in C99, a few OSes having it earlier) - is optional in the C99 and C11 standards (?7.20.1.1 in C11).> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:01 PM, William Dunlap via R-devel < > r-devel at r-project.org> wrote: > >> "Writing R Extensions" says "int": >> >> R storage mode C type FORTRAN type >> logical int* INTEGER >> integer int* INTEGER >> double double* DOUBLE PRECISION >> complex Rcomplex* DOUBLE COMPLEX >> character char** CHARACTER*255 >> raw unsigned char* none >> >> Bill Dunlap >> TIBCO Software >> wdunlap tibco.com >> >> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Wikipedia claims that C ints are still only guaranteed to be at least 16 >> bits, and longs are at least 32 bits. So no, R's integers are long. >>> >>> -pd >>> >>>> On 16 Jun 2017, at 20:20 , William Dunlap via R-devel < >> r-devel at r-project.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> But R "integers" are C "ints", as opposed to S "integers", which are C >>>> "long ints". (I suppose R never had to run on ancient hardware with 16 >> bit >>>> ints.) >>>> >>>> Bill Dunlap >>>> TIBCO Software >>>> wdunlap tibco.com >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Yihui Xie <xie at yihui.name> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah, that was what I heard from our instructor when I was a graduate >>>>> student: L stands for Long (integer). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Yihui >>>>> -- >>>>> https://yihui.name >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Serguei Sokol < >> sokol at insa-toulouse.fr >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Le 16/06/2017 ? 17:54, Henrik Bengtsson a ?crit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm just curious (no complaints), what was the reason for choosing >> the >>>>>>> letter 'L' as a suffix for integer constants? Does it stand for >>>>>>> something (literal?), is it because it visually stands out, ..., or >> no >>>>>>> specific reason at all? >>>>>> >>>>>> My guess is that it is inherited form C "long integer" type (contrary >> to >>>>>> "short integer" or simply "integer") >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_data_types >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>>> >>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >>>> >>>> ______________________________________________ >>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Dalgaard, Professor, >>> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School >>> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark >>> Phone: (+45)38153501 >>> Office: A 4.23 >>> Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >-- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, University of Oxford
Dirk Eddelbuettel
2017-Jun-17 15:56 UTC
[Rd] R history: Why 'L; in suffix character‘L’ for integer constants?
On 17 June 2017 at 06:40, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: | Also, int32_t | | - postdates R (it was introduced in C99, a few OSes having it earlier) | - is optional in the C99 and C11 standards (?7.20.1.1 in C11). Thanks for the C99 reference. Do you happen to know when it was added to C++? For the record, it became fairly common with C++ world in the early 'naughts' to abstract hardware and OS sizes away when more code was going from being used only on 32-bit OSs to also being used on 64-bit OSs. And being able to specify the width of integers was a big help for portable code. Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd at debian.org
Apparently Analagous Threads
- R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
- R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
- R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
- R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?
- R history: Why 'L; in suffix character ‘L’ for integer constants?