I do agree 'unsigned' is much more suitable for 'byte'. But the problem here is that we can't have Java-to-C++ interoperability if we leave different signedness for 'byte'. If it's not critical, okay.
Hiram Chirino wrote: > > I vote keep it unsigned. Signed bytes in Java were a mistake IMO. > Almost every time I have to work with bytes in Java I have to do the > "& 0xFF" tricks to turn it unsigned. > > Regards, > Hiram > > On 5/25/07, Motl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> At the moment, 'unsigned char' is used for BytesMessage representation in >> C++, whereas signed char is used in Java, that means the same message >> will >> be encoded differently in Java and C++! I agree that 'unsigned char' (or, >> precisely, uint8_t) is more suitable for 'byte' type in C/C++, but if we >> follow JMS standard, we should use 'signed char' instead. The >> representation >> of signed chars isn't a part of ANSI C Standard, but most compilers use >> 2's >> complement, and so Java does. >> Hereby, I propose to replace unsigned char with signed one. >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a10798606 >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a11027714 Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
