[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the wchar_t type

To: linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
Subject: Re: the wchar_t type
From: "T.E.Dickey" <dickey@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <E11T6gn-0003bL-00@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk> from "Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk>" at Sep 20, 99 05:53:15 pm
Reply-To: linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
Sender: owner-linux-utf8@humbolt.geo.uu.nl

> "T.E.Dickey" wrote on 1999-09-20 15:11 UTC: 
> > > So I'd like to submit patches to the GCC maintainers to change the  
> > > definition of `wchar_t' from `long int' to `int'. Any objections?  
> >  
> > why does it have to be a signed type? 
>  
> If I remember the C standard correctly, wint_t should be a signed type 
> that is a superset of wchar_t and includes WEOF. So if wchar_t is 

                                             (thanks - hadn't considered that)


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
dickey@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/

Prev by Date: Re: the wchar_t type
Next by Date: Re: the wchar_t type
Prev by thread: Re: the wchar_t type
Next by thread: Re: the wchar_t type
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread