Keith Thompson wrote:
> Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> In message <lnlk2ekx5r.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Keith Thompson
>> <kst-u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>> Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>> In message <48299ac3.2182222981@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Richard Bos
>>>> <rlb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>>>> Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet
many
>>>>>> don't now
>>>>> They had bloody better. You may not like it, but, like voting for
Gordon
>>>>> Brown, it's perfectly legal even if unusual and in some people's
opinion
>>>>> disgusting.
>>>> Some one, elsewhere in this thread, did a search on "char unsigned"
>>>> and go no hits at all.
>>>>
>>>> Has any one actually seen "char unsigned" used anywhere?
>>> I've only seen it (a) in this newsgroup, and (b) in a couple of test
>>> programs I've written to verify that compilers accept it.
>>>
>> Likewise.
>>
>> So how come Tomas started using it?
>>
>> It is not something you think up out of the blue on your own. Unless
>> he is deliberately trying to be perverse. (Which seems quite possible)
>
> I can't speak for Tomas, but one argument I've seen is that, for
> example, "long unsigned" more closely matches the printf format "%lu".
> Using "unsigned long" makes it more likely that you'll accidentally
> write "%lu" (and often the only symptom will be an extraneous 'u'
> after the printed number). It's a valid argument, but not one that I
> find persuasive.
>
"long unsigned" makes logical sense - it's adjective, adjective, noun
(with the noun "int" implied - personally I always prefer to write it
out). "char unsigned" is noun, adjective, which is not standard grammar
in English. That's why "char unsigned" sounds so bad when you try to
read it (unless you are a native French speaker, of course.)
|
