[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Use of @encode(char) not portable.

From: Adam Fedor
Subject: Re: Use of @encode(char) not portable.
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:58:59 -0600

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> I think perhaps we should replace all occurrences of @encode(char) with
> @encode(signed char) ... since all the other types are consistent in that
> omitting the signed/unsigned qualifier implies signed.

> Making the decoders more tolerant also sounds like a good idea ...
> perhaps
> we should do both?

I think so. My guess is that most programmers treat the difference
between signed/unsigned chars in a very cavalier way (or maybe it's just
me;-)) as opposed to other signed/unsigned types.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]