On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Jason Godden wrote: > On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:25 am, Markus Bertheau wrote: > > Ð ÐÑÐ, 05.11.2003, Ð 16:25, Tom Lane ÐÐÑÐÑ: > > > > +#define HEXVALUE(c) (((c)>='a') ? ((c)-87) : (((c)>='A') ? ((c)-55) : > > > > ((c)-'0'))) > > > > > > This seems excessively dependent on the assumption that the character > > > set is ASCII. Why have you hard-coded numeric equivalents into this > > > macro? > > > > What not ASCII compatible character sets are out there in use still > > today? > > Ah, yes - didn't even think about the character sets. If thats the case then > octal needs attention as well because it makes a similar assumption. Peter
I haven't looked at the code in question, but assuming the digits are contiguous and in order is safe, the C spec mandates that. Assuming that the letters are in order and contiguous is not safe. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
