Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: ANSI C awkward examples
Message-ID: <9538@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 19:22:59 EST
Article-I.D.: mimsy.9538
Posted: Wed Nov 25 19:22:59 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 06:33:42 EST
References: <1470@copper.TEK.COM> <6732@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 20

In article <6732@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>... The decision to specify the value-preserving rules was probably
>to most hotly debated X3J11 Committee decision,

(`Hotly debated' := shouting match, free-for-all, and/or food fight :-) )

>with AT&T on the side of the sign-preserving rules.  However, the
>outcome was as you see it, and now that it takes a 2/3 majority to
>make a substantive change to the draft Standard, I doubt the
>likelihood of the decision being reversed.

Alas!  This time AT&T was right (yes, I admit that AT&T SysV-oids are
not *always* wrong :-) ).

The new signed/unsigned rules (differing from PCC's), together with
the fact that the value of sizeof is `an unsigned integral type',
will (I predict) be the source of some of the most amazingly subtle bugs....
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris