From: James S. Adelman (j.adelman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 06:11:54
On Tuesday 16 April 2002 11:09 am, Alan Bellingham wrote:
> >Why is that a problem? It is permitted and
> >unambiguous, no more problematic than using long
> >to mean long int.
> You mean 'signed long int'?
Yes and no. The name of the fundamental type is "long int" and "signed long
int" is merely a simple-type-specifier which specifies the type "long int".
In constrast "unsigned int" is a fundamental type, for which one of the
simple-type-specifiers is "unsigned". See 3.9.2  and 22.214.171.124 [1; Table 1].
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk