Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: unsigned what? - (nf)
Message-ID: <3000026@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-May-84 11:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.3000026
Posted: Wed May 30 11:33:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:58:15 EDT
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #N:uokvax:3000026:000:822
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    May 30 10:33:00 1984

#N:uokvax:3000026:000:822
uokvax!emjej    May 30 10:33:00 1984

Apologies if this has been gone over before, but I tripped over this yesterday:

strict exegesis (or pilpul, depending on your religion) of K & R indicates that
the strings

		unsigned short
		unsigned char
		unsigned long

do not denote legitimate types in C, yet I see these in various places (some
Berkeley header files, for example). Have these types been blessed somewhere
(like the enum types) without mention? (For that matter, does the C++ (that
name bothers me, BTW: they changed the language but you get back the value
before the change? :->) CTR leave this section of the C Reference Manual
unchanged?

Side note: I sincerely hope that the fellow from Mark of the Unicorn who
wrote an extraordinarily wrong letter to SNot about how we don't need a
standard for C is reading this newsgroup...

						James Jones