signed/unsigned char/short/int/long [was: #defines with parameters]

[Chip Salzenberg]

According to pcg at aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi), concerning the fact that
the signedness of char is implementation-defined:

>[...] it is apparent in hindsight that syntax and
>semantics are incomplete, as there is no way to ensure the signedness of a
>"char" (a similar problem exists with bit fields), and that syntax does not
>properly reflect semantics.

Sure.  But for hysterical -- oops, I meant historical -- reasons, X3J11
couldn't fix it.  They did provide a way to specify signed and unsigned
chars when we care to, which is all we really need anyway.

>My contentions (for the last time!) are that
>    [1] this is not necessary, as it is more natural to drop the pretense
>    that "char" is a type distinct from "int", and instead adopt the notion
>    that "char" is like "short", an adjective that modifies the length of its
>    base type;

Well, sure.  But you're too late.

X3J11 did a good job.  Let's leave well enough alone.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg             <chip at ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering             Me?  Speak for my company?  Surely you jest!
	   Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.