Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2003
> > The good thing is that very rarely (well, at least in my experience) > > That just proves you have very limited experience :-). In C the > type "char" is basically just an int - why should it be the only It depends. A "char" is distinct from a "signed char" and "unsigned char": a "char" can be either signed or unsigned, depending. That is why mixing them is dangerous: what is unsigned in platform A can be signed in platform B. At least based on my limited experience :-) > kind of int you have to do something special to get signed? > > If unsigned char's make more sense, then $#@! declare them that way :-). Huh, I don't understand? I was pointing out that code often mixes chars of different signedness, which is error-prone, and I was moaning about gcc (being a popular compiler) not warning about such mixing; to which Dan suggested -funsigned-char; to which I claimed that it isn't look quite the same. I agree with you that people such be $#@! explicit about the signedness of their chars, based on my limited experience :-) -- Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@iki.fi> http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ "There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen