From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 13:08:22
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> writes:
| "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > > BTW, I didn't notice whether David caught this one up - a couple
| > > code samples use implicit int throughout.
| > do you mean that functions fail to declare a return type?
| No, there are some "unsigned"s not followed by "int".
Where is the problem? "unsigned" as a sole simple-type-specifier is
equivalent to "unsigned int", that is a wide practice in the C++
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk