Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 06:52:58PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed
integer.
The type unsigned char is defined to be an 8bit unsigned integer. Why
would
we want to add a bunch of unnecessary casting?
Not quite: http://home.att.net/~jackklein/c/inttypes.html
That doesn't resolve Roy's question of "why overload signed char and
unsigned char"?
Can anyone point to a platform where int8_t/uint8_t != signed/unsigned char?
If so, I agree with the patch.
I must have misunderstood the orig request... I thought it was simply
creating int8_t/uint8_t to compliment the existing int*_t/uint*_t types
That's what I read too, and would answer Roy's question as "uniform
syntax/readability". Not a strong reason, but certainly no harm that I
can see in it...
Issac
