home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Autzoo.1511
- net.bugs.v7
- utcsrgv!utzoo!henry
- Thu Mar 25 22:46:09 1982
- (unsigned)char again
- I should have been clearer about a couple of points in my recent
- notes about (unsigned)c in net.bugs.v7. The interpretation of casts
- as semantically equivalent to assignment to a temporary is straight
- from Dennis Ritchie (as of Santa Monica USENIX two months ago) and
- is therefore the Official Word. To my mind this supersedes Hans
- Spiller's paper. Dennis also does not seem to agree with Hans's
- idea of always making char signed on all machines; what Dennis said
- in my presence was about what I'd always thought his view was, i.e the
- signed nature of char on the 11 is a lamentable historical accident
- that should not be blindly imitated.
-
- [Dennis, I apologize if I am misrepresenting your views. I'm working
- from notes made in the evening about conversations during the day.]
-
- Dennis was not sure whether the definitive interpretation of casts
- had made it into the 3.0 compiler. Hans's paper indicates it didn't.
-
- Who's right? I dunno. Making casts systematically equivalent to
- assignment seems a good idea to me; it gives them an exact definition
- for the first time and eliminates needing two sets of conversion rules.
- I do wish my compiler had unsigned char, though. Whether char should
- be considered signed in future implementations is less clear. My own
- view is that they ought to have been unsigned from the beginning, and
- given that they weren't, any code which relies on EITHER interpretation
- is wrong and unportable.
-
- If there is interest in further discussion of this, please mail to me
- and I'll summarize for the network.
-
- Henry Spencer
- decvax!utzoo!henry
-