activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Motl <m...@orcsoftware.com>
Subject Re: char signedness
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:38:57 GMT

I do agree 'unsigned' is much more suitable for 'byte'. But the problem here
is that we can't have Java-to-C++ interoperability if we leave different
signedness for 'byte'. If it's not critical,  okay.


Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
> I vote keep it unsigned.  Signed bytes in Java were a mistake IMO.
> Almost every time I have to work with bytes in Java I have to do the
> "& 0xFF" tricks to turn it unsigned.
> 
> Regards,
> Hiram
> 
> On 5/25/07, Motl <motl@orcsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> At the moment, 'unsigned char' is used for BytesMessage representation in
>> C++,  whereas signed char is used in Java, that means the same message
>> will
>> be encoded differently in Java and C++! I agree that 'unsigned char' (or,
>> precisely,  uint8_t) is more suitable for 'byte' type in C/C++, but if we
>> follow JMS standard, we should use 'signed char' instead. The
>> representation
>> of signed chars isn't a part of ANSI C Standard, but most compilers use
>> 2's
>> complement, and so Java does.
>> Hereby, I propose to replace unsigned char with signed one.
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a10798606
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Hiram
> 
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/char-signedness-tf3814717s2354.html#a11027714
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message