On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 03.08.2011 13:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >I don't believe that the standard allows for an implementation of > >enums as unsigned integers - after all, individual enum literals can > >be given corresponding negative integer values. > > C99 says: > > >Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, > >or an > >unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,110) but > >shall be > >capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration.
Are we moving to C99? C89 says: Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type; the choice of type is implementation-defined. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers