Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!rutgers!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: draft ANSI standard: are chars signed? Message-ID: <5448@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 11:44:20 EST Article-I.D.: brl-smok.5448 Posted: Mon Dec 15 11:44:20 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 18:48:50 EST References: <1382@hoptoad.uucp> <8322@lll-crg.ARpA> <783@nscpdc.NSC.COM> <1462@hoptoad.uucp> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 13 In article <1462@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I would rather they had broken half the code that makes assumptions, >rather than all of it. X3J11 did not change the pre-existing situation with respect to (char) signedness. There never was a guarantee that (char) was signed, nor that it was unsigned. It will be either one or the other, defined by the implementation. There is a guarantee that the required source character set have positive values as (char)s; so far as I know, this also agrees with existing practice. Since there was no change made to the status quo, it's hard to see how this counts as "breaking code".