I agree with the uniqueness of the type, but i like HB_UCHAR. The 'unsigned' qualifier is declared, despite of HB_BYTE (signed or unsigned?). I know that it's more familiar, but not so precise as the HB_UCHAR (leaving no doubt about the sign).
Maurizio la Cecilia > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Viktor Szakáts [mailto:harbour...@syenar.hu] > Inviato: giovedì 11 febbraio 2010 15.07 > A: Harbour Project Main Developer List. > Oggetto: [Harbour] HB_BYTE vs. HB_UCHAR > > Hi Przemek and All, > > We have this decision left regarding new types, > and I'd like to clear it. > > We currently have two types which are mapped to > the same ANSI C type 'unsigned char'. > > IMO if we want to keep both, we should give some > clear guideline to Harbour and 3rd party developer, > as to which should be used in what situations. > > If we cannot do so, or if there is indeed no clear > different between them (meaning they are equivalent), > we should keep only one of them. In this case, > the question is which to keep. > > IMO we should keep HB_BYTE since it looks much more > familiar for users/developers and it's also much > older term in Harbour. > > Opinions are welcome. > > Brgds, > Viktor > > > _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
