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
