Ah, here is an even clearer statement on unsigned.
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > should use: signed or unsigned chars, anyone has an idea?
> >
> > In all my own code, I always set the compiler option to make char an
> > unsigned type. For portability I like to know that the behaviour
> > won't change as long as I carry over my compiler options. I like
> > that way better than casting since I don't get conflict warnings
> > for sending unsigned (or signed) char to library functions. Remember,
> > char, signed char and unsigned char are 3 distinct types even though
> > char has to behave exactly like one of the other two. Setting it up on
> > the compiler command line gets around that.
> >
> > As for signed vs. unsigned, I don't think it matters that much. I chose
> > unsigned since I never do signed arithmetic on char and if I ever did I
> > would like to have the extra keywork to draw attention to it.
>
> That is what I think of, and what I usually use - tweak compiler options
> to unsigned char.
> So, my conclusion - reject the patch and teach people to change compiler
> options.
>
> Oleg.
> ----
> Oleg Broytmann http://members.xoom.com/phd2/ phd2@earthling.net
> Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
>
>
>
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026