On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 06:52:58PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote: > >On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why? The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed > >> integer. > >> The type unsigned char is defined to be an 8bit unsigned integer. Why > >> would > >> we want to add a bunch of unnecessary casting? > > > >Not quite: http://home.att.net/~jackklein/c/inttypes.html > > That doesn't resolve Roy's question of "why overload signed char and > unsigned char"? > > Can anyone point to a platform where int8_t/uint8_t != signed/unsigned char? > If so, I agree with the patch. >
I must have misunderstood the orig request... I thought it was simply creating int8_t/uint8_t to compliment the existing int*_t/uint*_t types -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams
