C standard question?

[Chris H]

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote, On 11/05/08 17:17:



You really do seem to want to insult the majority of programmers
whether they be professions or amateur, neophite or expert.

Ignore him..... he is taking the same attitude of insulting the very
experienced regulars on comp.arch.embedded as well.

He clearly has a lot of blind enthusiasm and an unshakeable belief that
his ideas are all wonderful and the rest of us who have been earning a
living in this field and in some cases shaping the standards, don't know
what we are doing but he has a divine insight into the truth.

 

[Chris H]

What do you mean when you say that the compiler "did it that way"?

The compiler's normal mode was char unsigned. Then they changed it to
accept unsigned char. (and char unsigned)

Any conforming C compiler must accept either "unsigned char" or
"char unsigned".

Either or both?

If you're referring to the coding style used
in the compiler itself

No. Didn't mean that

, a compiler (assuming it's written in C)
is no more or less relevant than any other chunk of C code.

Agreed.

BTW

 

[Chris H]

Chris H said:


Both. You have already been shown the relevant part of both Standards.

I thought so I was just clarifying.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

Ignore him..... he is taking the same attitude of insulting the very
experienced regulars on comp.arch.embedded as well.

He clearly has a lot of blind enthusiasm and an unshakeable belief that
his ideas are all wonderful and the rest of us who have been earning a
living in this field and in some cases shaping the standards, don't know
what we are doing but he has a divine insight into the truth.

Again I'd invite anyone to give an example of where I've been rude to
someone who has been courteous to me.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Again I'd invite anyone to give an example of where I've been rude to
someone who has been courteous to me.

In your response that included accusations of mental retardation, you
were rude to the entire group. If you wished to be rude to one
person, you could have used e-mail.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The compiler's normal mode was char unsigned. Then they changed it to
accept unsigned char. (and char unsigned)

You mean there was actually a C compiler that would accept
"char unsigned" but reject "unsigned char"? Remarkable.
(Actually, I'd hesitate to call such a beast a "C compiler".

[snip]

[The aioe.org Usenet server, which I've been using to post here,
appears to have vanished. I'm posting this through my ISP's news
server, which has had serious problems in the past.]

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

He clearly has a lot of blind enthusiasm and an unshakeable belief
that his ideas are all wonderful and the rest of us who have been
earning a living in this field and in some cases shaping the
standards, don't know what we are doing but he has a divine insight
into the truth.

It's called youth, I think. I remember it well.

 

[santosh]

One Frederick Gotham who used to post here a lot
preferred "char unsigned", someone called it
ridiculous,

Actually the accusation, IIRC, was that it (the construct)
was "perverse", which Frederick Gotham interpreted as an accusation of
perversion of his character.

<snip>

 

[Chris H]

You mean there was actually a C compiler that would accept
"char unsigned" but reject "unsigned char"? Remarkable.
(Actually, I'd hesitate to call such a beast a "C compiler".

Actually thinking about it: it was not char unsigned to unsigned char
but a memory specifier that had it's order changed.

So I Don't actually know a compiler that used char unsigned rather than
unsigned char.

 

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

[The aioe.org Usenet server, which I've been using to post here,
appears to have vanished. I'm posting this through my ISP's news
server, which has had serious problems in the past.]

I read something about aioe losing their domain name by not renewing on
time or something.

Another free one people recommend is http://motzarella.org and of
course there's the inexpensive http://news.individual.net option.




Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

[The aioe.org Usenet server, which I've been using to post here,
appears to have vanished. I'm posting this through my ISP's news
server, which has had serious problems in the past.]

I read something about aioe losing their domain name by not renewing on
time or something.

Another free one people recommend is http://motzarella.org and of
course there's the inexpensive http://news.individual.net option.

<OT>
Thanks for the info. A "whois" on aioe.org indicates that the last
update was about the time they vanished.

But since you're able to read this, perhaps the UDP on rr.com has been
lifted? If so, I won't need a separate free server.
</OT>

 

[Richard Bos]

Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet many
don't now

They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for Gordon
Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's opinion
disgusting.

Richard

 

[Chris H]

They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for Gordon
Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's opinion
disgusting.

Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned" and
go no hits at all.

Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned"
and go no hits at all.

Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?

I've only seen it (a) in this newsgroup, and (b) in a couple of test
programs I've written to verify that compilers accept it.

 

[Chris H]

I've only seen it (a) in this newsgroup, and (b) in a couple of test
programs I've written to verify that compilers accept it.

Likewise.

So how come Tomas started using it?

It is not something you think up out of the blue on your own. Unless he
is deliberately trying to be perverse. (Which seems quite possible)

 

[Willem]

Chris H wrote:
) In message <[email protected]>, Richard Bos
)>
)>> Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet many
)>> don't now
)>
)>They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for Gordon
)>Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's opinion
)>disgusting.
)
) Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned" and
) go no hits at all.
)
) Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?

Irrelevant.


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

 

[Keith Thompson]

Likewise.

So how come Tomas started using it?

It is not something you think up out of the blue on your own. Unless
he is deliberately trying to be perverse. (Which seems quite possible)

I can't speak for Tomas, but one argument I've seen is that, for
example, "long unsigned" more closely matches the printf format "%lu".
Using "unsigned long" makes it more likely that you'll accidentally
write "%lu" (and often the only symptom will be an extraneous 'u'
after the printed number). It's a valid argument, but not one that I
find persuasive.

 

[Chris H]

Chris H wrote:
) In message <[email protected]>, Richard Bos
)>
)>> Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet many
)>> don't now
)>
)>They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for Gordon
)>Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's opinion
)>disgusting.
)
) Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned" and
) go no hits at all.
)
) Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?

Irrelevant.

Why?

If it is something no one has used and no one has seen used (and some
people hare can remember back to the start of C) why is it still there?

 

[Harald van Dijk]

I can't speak for Tomas, but one argument I've seen is that, for
example, "long unsigned" more closely matches the printf format "%lu".
Using "unsigned long" makes it more likely that you'll accidentally
write "%lu" (and often the only symptom will be an extraneous 'u' after
the printed number). It's a valid argument, but not one that I find
persuasive.

Using "unsigned long" makes it more likely that you'll accidentally write
"%ul" (and often the only symptom will be an extraneous 'l' after the
printed number). I can see that you're so accustomed to %lu that you don't
even get it wrong when you want to. If everyone were, there would be no
need to write long unsigned, but not everyone is

 

[Willem]

Chris wrote:
) In message <[email protected]>, Willem
)>Chris H wrote:
)>) In message <[email protected]>, Richard Bos
)>)>
)>)>> Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet many
)>)>> don't now
)>)>
)>)>They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for Gordon
)>)>Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's opinion
)>)>disgusting.
)>)
)>) Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned" and
)>) go no hits at all.
)>)
)>) Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?
)>
)>Irrelevant.
)
) Why?

Because the C standard sais so. Whether it's used or not is irrelevant.

) If it is something no one has used and no one has seen used (and some
) people hare can remember back to the start of C) why is it still there?

Why bother to change the standard for something that isn't used anyway ?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT