Message-ID:	<373B5CA7.659C7965@unb.ca>
Date:	Thu, 13 May 1999 19:13:43 -0400
From:	Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Portability and size_t type related question
References:	<199905131629 DOT SAA32708 AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Info:	BrunNet, Inc. 888-278-6638
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > Most people think that byte is a synonym for 8 bits.
>
> I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make it correct, at least not from
> a 'language-lawyer' point of view. Actually, the equivalence of 8 bits
> being a byte is a rather recent invention, compared to the use of the
> 'byte' in computing. There have been 7-bit bytes, 9-bit ones. 8 bits
> just happens to be *so* common today that most of us, esp. those who
> grew up on 8-bit home-computers, tend to think it's the only possible
> definition.

    There were 6 and 4 bit bytes.  4 bit bytes were very popular for a while.
The IBM/360 was the machine that started the whole 8 bit byte hype.

--
     (\/) Endlisnis (\/)
          s257m AT unb DOT ca
          Endlisnis AT HotMail DOT com
          ICQ: 32959047

- Raw text -