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