Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!nscpdc!joemu From: joemu@nscpdc.NSC.COM (Joe Mueller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.std.internat Subject: Re: draft ANSI standard: are chars signed? Message-ID: <793@nscpdc.NSC.COM> Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 13:27:44 EST Article-I.D.: nscpdc.793 Posted: Wed Dec 17 13:27:44 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 21:16:05 EST References: <1382@hoptoad.uucp> <8322@lll-crg.ARpA> <783@nscpdc.NSC.COM> <1462@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: National Semiconductor, Portland Development Center, Portland, OR Lines: 22 Summary: you missed the point Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:463 comp.std.internat:59 In article <1462@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > > We ended up adopting the compromise of: > > char - signed or unsigned, implementation defined > > Of course, this compromise breaks all the code that depends on chars > being EITHER signed OR unsigned! To be portable and "strictly > conforming", you can't depend on =chars having signs= or =chars having no > signs=, you just can't depend. > > I would rather they had broken half the code that makes assumptions, > rather than all of it. You missed the point. The position the committee took doesn't break any code. It's just not maximally portable (strictly conforming). This code has never been portable to all systems. If you want to make this code more portable, you will have to add "signed" or "unsigned" to all of your char declarations to get the range you really want. If we had made all chars signed, it would have truely broken all the code that depended on it being unsigned. Joe Mueller ...!nsc!nscpdc!joemu