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".