Re: Use of @encode(char) not portable.

[Adam Fedor]

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> 
> 
> I think perhaps we should replace all occurrences of @encode(char) with
> @encode(signed char) ... since all the other types are consistent in that
> omitting the signed/unsigned qualifier implies signed.
> 
ok.

> Making the decoders more tolerant also sounds like a good idea ...
> perhaps
> we should do both?

I think so. My guess is that most programmers treat the difference
between signed/unsigned chars in a very cavalier way (or maybe it's just
me;-)) as opposed to other signed/unsigned types.