Chris H wrote:
> In message <482d642f.2430432381@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Richard Bos
> <rlb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>> Jack Klein <jackklein@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
>>>
>>> > On May 7, 8:20 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > unsigned int ui = (unsigned int)uc << 24;
>>> >
>>> > You wouldn't believe how many people do the likes of the following:
>>> >
>>> > char unsigned uc1, uc2;
>>>
>>> I would have a hard time believing that any people in the world other
>>> than you write the ridiculous "char unsigned".
>>
>> You may not believe it, but I have seen it. Rarely, and I don't
remember
>> where, but I've seen it used.
>>
>> And in any case, it is not relevant whether any of us believe that
>> anyone else would or would not write it that way 'round. It is allowed
>> to be written that way 'round, it is no less clear that way 'round
>> except for pure blind habit-boundness, and any programmer who has real
>> problems reading code which uses "char unsigned" instead of "unsigned
>> char" is considerably more ridiculous than the one who uses it - and, I
>> would say, a rather worse programmer for it as well.
>
> However it WILL cause problems as "everyone" uses the other way around.
Yes, it WILL.
Millions of yactoseconds of time WIIL
be lost by the confusion it causes.
*millions*, I say!!! *millions*!!!
But to date, that just hasn't happened yet.
--
pete
|
