Yes, I'm doing it right now ) It's not a problem for me, so I just proposed.
Tim Bish wrote: > > There really isn't any interoperability issues, if you want a signed > byte on the C++ side just cast and you are done. > > Motl wrote: >> I do agree 'unsigned' is much more suitable for 'byte'. But the problem >> here >> is that we can't have Java-to-C++ interoperability if we leave different >> signedness for 'byte'. If it's not critical, okay. >> >> >> Hiram Chirino wrote: >> >>> I vote keep it unsigned. Signed bytes in Java were a mistake IMO. >>> Almost every time I have to work with bytes in Java I have to do the >>> "& 0xFF" tricks to turn it unsigned. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hiram >>> >>> On 5/25/07, Motl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> At the moment, 'unsigned char' is used for BytesMessage representation >>>> in >>>> C++, whereas signed char is used in Java, that means the same message >>>> will >>>> be encoded differently in Java and C++! I agree that 'unsigned char' >>>> (or, >>>> precisely, uint8_t) is more suitable for 'byte' type in C/C++, but if >>>> we >>>> follow JMS standard, we should use 'signed char' instead. The >>>> representation >>>> of signed chars isn't a part of ANSI C Standard, but most compilers use >>>> 2's >>>> complement, and so Java does. >>>> Hereby, I propose to replace unsigned char with signed one. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a10798606 >>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Hiram >>> >>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a11028214 Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
