Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ginosko!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: char signedness (was: What's a C expert?) Message-ID: <10726@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 13 Aug 89 02:54:06 GMT References: <12214@well.UUCP> <6057@microsoft.UUCP> <4722@alvin.mcnc.org> <25999@amdcad.AMD.COM> <4724@alvin.mcnc.org> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 9 In article <4724@alvin.mcnc.org> spl@mcnc.org.UUCP (Steve Lamont) writes: -In article <25999@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amd.com (Tim Olson) writes: ->Having the sign of chars be undefined allows the implementation to be as ->efficient as possible with respect to converting between chars and ints. -Huh? Are you telling us that the standard *allows* such a horrible -thing? It has to -- that's been a C language rule since way back (see K&R 1st Edition, for example).