Re: C standard question?

In message <8763tkptqi.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Keith Thompson 
<kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> In message <op7hf5-cmk.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes
>>>Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote [re "char unsigned":
>>>>
>>>> ISO C90 has been superseded several times.  Is it still legal?
>>>
>>>C90 has only been superseded once, although it has also been amended
>>>(once) and corrected (twice).  The superseding document (C99) has also
>>>been corrected (thrice), but not amended.
>>>
>>>Yes, it's still valid (it was never "illegal"); 6.7.2p2 still contains
>>>the same text as C90 did.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I have only eve seen one compiler that did it that way and they
>> changed to the unsigned char over a decade ago.  I did scan through
>> the standard but missed the clause.
>
>What do you mean when you say that the compiler "did it that way"?

The compiler's normal mode was char unsigned. Then they changed it to 
accept unsigned char. (and char unsigned)


>Any conforming C compiler must accept either "unsigned char" or
>"char unsigned".

Either or both?

>  If you're referring to the coding style used
>in the compiler itself

No. Didn't mean that

>, a compiler (assuming it's written in C)
>is no more or less relevant than any other chunk of C code.

Agreed.

BTW
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/