Re: C standard question?

On May 11, 1:12=A0pm, Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Anyway I believe that "char unsigned" is harmless
> and does not warrant an inflammatory and potentially
> offensive comment as "ridiculous". Especially if it's
> the only comment in the post.


Thanks Spiros, at least one person other than myself understands the
implications of labelling someone else's way of programming as
ridiculous, especially when the differing way makes negligible impact
on the code, and zero impact on the assembler produced.

Keith Thompson and Jack Klein have so far used the word "ridiculous".
Jack Klein has been hostile, arrogrant and caustic toward me already,
so I din't think there's much point in discussing him. As for Keith,
well he tends to be courteous mainly but then he seems to drop the
ball by going and calling other people's code "ridiculous" for no good
reason.

As for the the whole "char unsigned" versus "unsigned char" thing,
well I don't care to debate in anymore but it's such a ridiculously
stupid thing in my head. The very fact that Mr Klein even brought up
the issue makes me wonder what's going thru his head: I mean either
he's deliberatley being a prick (which I do suspect), or he actually
has some sort of mental difficulty in coming to terms with a simple re-
ordering of words.

Describing the re-ordering of words in "char unsigned" versus
"unsigned char" as trivial is an under-statement. I mean, really, I
can't think of anything more simple. It's even more simple than "++i
versus i++".

And given that it's such a stupidly ridiculous thing to even be
debating, I couldn't be bothered listening to incompetants tell me how
they have a stroke when their brain sees "char unsigned" instead of
"unsigned char". If anything your brain could do with the exercise in
variety.