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