From -5905416901586045073
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,f86cdbd4280bf4a1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-03 09:14:08 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock)
Subject: Re: Bytes and Characters
Message-ID: <CypBvL.93H@microsoft.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 17:14:08 GMT
References: <1994Oct25.144408.21066@datascope.com> <9430004.4492@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <38om99$120@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Lines: 19

In article <38om99$120@hpsystem1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> schuenem@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Ulf Schuenemann) writes:
|
|In article <9430004.4492@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:
||> >This would certainly produce a more symmetric type system and avoid the 
||> >rather ugly "wchar_t" keyword recently added. 
||> 
||> If you want to avoid ugly keywords, campaign for it to be called "long char".
|
|How/where can I campaign for "long char" ?

long char implies to me 32-bits, and there are standards describing such
a beast too, so we should leave our options over there.  How about if
we more accurately name the 16-bit character flavor:

	"double char"

;-)