From: Jesse Jones (jejones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-19 18:40:54
>Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]> writes:
>| Here is a response to Jesse Jones' query from Mike Miller (the C++
>| committee's core language working group chair).
>| I'll respond to him suggesting that there is in fact a defect; the readers
>| were "knowledgeable" and yet they reached the opposite conclusion.
>| Regardless of that, no one else has challenged Mike's answers to the
>| questions, so I expect his interpretation is what most of the core working
>| group believes.
>I do find Mike's answer as reflecting my understanding of the
>Standard. Actually, I'm surprised it can be read in a way which might
>imply "const int" is not signed :-)
The question is not whether it is signed, it is whether it is a signed
integral type. The standard says:
1) There are four signed integral types: signed char, short int, int, and
long int. [3.9.1]
2) Each cv-unqualified type has three cv-qualified "versions" of its type:
a const version, a volatile version, and a const volatile version. However
these are distinct types. [3.9.3]
Miller seems to think this can be read as allowing const int to be a signed
integral type, but I still don't buy it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk