Re: C standard question?

In message <lnk5hzmrw2.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Keith Thompson 
<kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> 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 ISO C90 has been superseded several times.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C90 has only been superseded once, although it has also been amended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 do***ent (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)
>
>You mean there was actually a C compiler that would accept
>"char unsigned" but reject "unsigned char"?  Remarkable.
>(Actually, I'd hesitate to call such a beast a "C compiler".

Actually thinking about it: it was not char unsigned to unsigned char 
but a memory specifier that had it's order changed.

So I Don't actually know a compiler that used char unsigned rather than 
unsigned char.

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