On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi,
> We have this decision left regarding new types, > and I'd like to clear it. > We currently have two types which are mapped to > the same ANSI C type 'unsigned char'. > > IMO if we want to keep both, we should give some > clear guideline to Harbour and 3rd party developer, > as to which should be used in what situations. > > If we cannot do so, or if there is indeed no clear > different between them (meaning they are equivalent), > we should keep only one of them. In this case, > the question is which to keep. > > IMO we should keep HB_BYTE since it looks much more > familiar for users/developers and it's also much > older term in Harbour. HB_UCHAR precisely define it's unsigned type. BYTE does not have to be signed or unsigned so replacing HB_UCHAR by HB_BYTE is not good idea in my opinion. We can eliminate HB_BYTE and use everywhere HB_UCHAR but I also do not find anything wrong in keeping this type to to mark memory blocks of data in bytes. Just like we are using 'char' for strings. In both cases the sign is unimportant. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
