>> 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.
I have no problem with either variation, though if we want to keep it, can you describe when to use HB_UCHAR and when to use HB_BYTE? Or give some examples from Harbour, that should make it easier to understand. [ After browsing through the whole codebase for days, I couldn't really find out the concept, so I can't help here. ] Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
