John F. Woods wrote:
> 
> Someone whose name I will elide to reduce their embarassment replied:

I admit it.  This would be me.

> 
> > > > long long is *forbidden* by ANSI.
> > Perhaps it is time for ANSI to revise their standard yet again,
> > as it appears that "long==32bits"
> 
> Please go read THE STANDARD.

I would, had I immediate access to this magickal document
which is apparently not permitted to be placed on-line for network
reference.

> 
> Long is not defined to be exactly 32 bits.  Long is defined to be AT LEAST
> 32 bits.  "long long" is a SYNTAX ERROR, not a violation of a size constraint.

Ah.  I read it wrong, then.

> A type named __int64 would be a perfectly legal extension which requires no
> diagnostic message.
> 
> > Having sizeof(long) < sizeof(int) while potentially permissible,
> 
> Having sizeof(long) < sizeof(int) is NOT PERMISSIBLE.

Really?  I suppose that's in the standard too, but in the
last violent flagellation of this deceased equine, this very
point was raised, and it seemed strange to me that
sizeof(int) could be greater than sizeof(long).

> Sheesh.

Hey.  It's been a day.  I _try_ to learn from my mistakes.
-- 
912559 12648430 5UCK5 R0CK5.