apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>
Subject Re: freezing 1.3 tonight
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 06:44:54 GMT

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 06:52:58PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 2:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>>> Why?  The type char is defined by the C standard to be an 8bit signed 
>>>> integer.
>>>> The type unsigned char is defined to be an 8bit unsigned integer.  Why 
>>>> would
>>>> we want to add a bunch of unnecessary casting?
>>> Not quite: http://home.att.net/~jackklein/c/inttypes.html
>> That doesn't resolve Roy's question of "why overload signed char and
>> unsigned char"?
>> Can anyone point to a platform where int8_t/uint8_t != signed/unsigned char?
>> If so, I agree with the patch.
> I must have misunderstood the orig request... I thought it was simply
> creating int8_t/uint8_t to compliment the existing int*_t/uint*_t types

That's what I read too, and would answer Roy's question as "uniform 
syntax/readability".  Not a strong reason, but certainly no harm that I 
can see in it...


View raw message