On 2022-03-24 11:54:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Erm, is that really OK? C says "Each enumerated type shall be
> compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an
> unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,
> but shall be capable of representing the values of all the members of
> the enumeration." It could even legally vary from enum to enum,
> though in practice most compilers probably just use ints all the time
> unless you use weird pragma pack incantation. Therefore I think you
> need an intermediate variable with the size and signedness matching the
> format string, if you're going to scanf directly into it, which
> David's V6 did.
/me yearns for the perfectly reasonable C++ 11 feature of defining the base
type for enums (enum name : basetype { }). One of those features C should have
adopted long ago. Not that we could use it yet, given we insist that C
standards have reached at least european drinking age before relying on them.
