Oh right, what I really meant was 'char' instead of 'long'. In fact I just took the type from the referenced article. Sorry for that.
So am I right that the compiler should distinguish between char, signed char and unsigned char in the proposed way? > > "long" and "signed long" are the same type. You are confused about how > C and C++ are defined. Same with "int" and "signed int". Only for "char" > are things different; it is implementation-defined (can differ from > platform to platform) whether "char" is signed or not. >