I agree with Dean. Since the C++ API uses an unsigned value, it is
impossible to pass a negative value, since the calling member function has
no idea that a parameter was initialized with a negative constant.
Dave
Dean Roddey
<droddey@charmed To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
quark.com> cc: (bcc: David N Bertoni/CAM/Lotus)
Subject: Re: DOM conformance tests
04/24/2001 12:10
AM
Please respond
to xerces-c-dev
"n a perfect world, it would probably be best to remove the unsigned
qualifiers from he arguments so that the behavior would parallel that of
the
Java implementation."
Do we really want to adopt Java limitations like that, just to make those
few tests pass? Its really just a shortcoming of Java that they'd model for
which negative values have no meaning with a signed type.
--------------------------
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib C++ Frameworks
Charmed Quark Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.charmedquark.com
"Why put off until tomorrow what you can
put off until the day after tomorrow?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- DOM conformance tests Curt Arnold
- Re: DOM conformance tests Andy Heninger
- Re: DOM conformance tests Dean Roddey
- Re: DOM conformance tests Curt Arnold
- RE: DOM conformance tests David_N_Bertoni
- RE: DOM conformance tests Arnold, Curt
- RE: DOM conformance tests Dean Roddey
- Re: DOM conformance tests Joseph_Kesselman
- Re: DOM conformance tests Curt Arnold
- Re: DOM conformance tests Joseph_Kesselman
