[LLVMdev] Are integer types primitive?

[Chris Lattner]

On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> Originally, the distinguishing feature of "primitive" types was that they were enumerable and not parameterized on anything.

Right.

> Then we moved to arbitrary bit-width integers types to generalize things significantly (the right move IMO).

Right.

> Thus, integers were no longer technically primitive types, and their categorization in code has changed to reflect this.
> 
Right.

> 
> But that doesn't make *any sense*. The documentation for primitive types also is still written in a way that would include integers.

What purpose does the notion of "primitive" types serve anymore?  Why don't we just abolish that from the lexicon and from the code?

-Chris