From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-16 16:54:29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Stein" <noah_at_[hidden]>
> There's no deep issue or defect I was trying to uncover or understand.
> Initially I just wanted to point out how, although "signed int" means
> "signed char" doesn't mean char even if the compiler chooses to
> characters as a signed quantity. It seemed inconsistent, so it was a
> addition to the discussion at hand.
> While I was looking for the reference to that in the standard, I came
> the second topic about chars and unsigned chars. I thought it strange
> the standard should specifically mention that objects can be copied as
> array of chars and unsigned chars, but didn't mention that they could
> be unsigned chars. It seemed weird since 3.9.1p1 also states that "A
> a signed char, and an unsigned char occupy the same amount of storage
> have the same alignment requirements." I just wonder why the standard
> the effort to state "char and unsigned char" in 3.9p2. Does anyone
> signed chars were specifically excluded for a reaoson from 3.9p2, and
I've forwarded your posting to the CWG chair as a potential DR, so we'll
find out soon enough. In the meantime, this thread is OT, so if you
don't mind let's stick to boost-related issues.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk