1. I would like to see _BitInt(1) allowed in both C and C++. The question is what to do in C++ if C does not change to allow it. I'm not sure; probably for your proposal, I would follow the C rules. Unless you think adding it to C++ would help to persuade C to allow it.... 2. I agree with your reasoning. Regards, Paul -----Original message----- From: Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Sent: Monday, September 1 2025, 11:03 am To: C++ Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Cc: Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> Subject: [std-proposals] D3666R0 Bit-precise integers Hey, As some of you may already know, I am working on bringing bit-precise integers (_BitInt) to C++. See a very early draft of the paper here: https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D3666r0.html The debate over whether _BitInt should be a fundamental type or library type has been largely settled, however there are two other contentious points: 1. C does not allow _BitInt(1); should C++ to make generic programming more comfortable? 2. Should the _BitInt keyword exist in C++? I currently propose to have it, mainly because it inevitably will exist as a compiler extension or compatibility macro, and it seems pointlessly user-hostile not to just standardize existing practice. If you have some early feedback, especially feedback on these two points, that would be appreciated. You should expect the finished paper to be in the September mailing. Jan -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals