Christopher Key wrote:
The reason for wanting the (u)int8 types was primarily for readabilty, i.e. to distinguish between whether you are manipulating character data or numerical data. Moreover, there are times where you specifically require an 8 bit uint, i.e. 255 + 1 == 0 etc.
+1 (be warned about magic 128/-128 values that vary between 2's-compliment and binary bitwise negation for apr_int8). Let's simply vote, I'll give this a very short voting window so we don't block on the release. It can still happen late today. I read Roy's objection as just that - an objection but not a veto.
