Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 13045 invoked by uid 6000); 7 Jul 1998 19:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13036 invoked from network); 7 Jul 1998 19:41:26 -0000 Received: from mrelay.jrc.it (139.191.1.65) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 7 Jul 1998 19:41:26 -0000 Received: from elpc36.jrc.it (elpc36.jrc.it [139.191.71.36]) by mrelay.jrc.it (LMC5688) with ESMTP id VAA08137 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:41:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from dirkx@localhost) by elpc36.jrc.it (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA11020; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:41:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dirkx) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:41:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik X-Sender: dirkx@elpc36.jrc.it To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: PR 2553 and 2282 In-Reply-To: <9807071055.aa09310@paris.ics.uci.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Shouldn't (unsigned) be (unsigned char), as in > > #define ap_isalnum(c) (isalnum(((unsigned char)(c))) > > or is the potential lack of (unsigned char) the problem? Hmm, certainly in the area the lack of proper testing and debugging. >From personal experience with porting things such as Tcl/Tk to machines on which signed vs. unsigned matter; I fear that this opens up a whole can of worms. Whereas a normal char (or signed int), though arguably wrong, gives expetable behavour. Given the boxes most of us have access to I would have trouble seeing how to debug and test that. dw.