[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fix u32toutf8 so it encodes values > 0xFFFF correctly.

From: Linda Walsh
Subject: Re: Fix u32toutf8 so it encodes values > 0xFFFF correctly.
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:02:38 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Eric Blake wrote:

Don't think of it as 'wide-int', rather, think of it as 'the integral
type that both contains wchar_t and WEOF'.  You cannot write 'signed
wint_t' nor 'unsigned 'wint_t'.

?? You say don't think of it that way, but unless I missed something,
just like wchar stood for 'wide char', (and char's have always been
signed or unsigned, (separate from short ints/unsigned short),  the
term 'wint' would have come from wide int.  But ints have never been
unsigned unless specifically prefixed as such... so wints shouldn't
have the ambiguity that chars have.

 It may very well exist as unsigned somewhere -- but the implementer
should be chained to a 1960's card punch and forced to write in cobol.

You still haven't mentioned anyplace where wint_t is an unsigned
value.   Is this a hypothetical issue?  I.e. in theory it could
be unsigned , but in practice no one has ever made it so?

If so, it might be a good time to shoot that idea in the foot.
(or something like that...)...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]