From -5141623745636758555 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,f86cdbd4280bf4a1 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-26 14:38:58 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Bytes and Characters Message-ID: <9430004.4492@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia References: <1994Oct25.144408.21066@datascope.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 18:59:31 GMT Lines: 18 sfc@datascope.com (Steve F. Cipolli (P/M)) writes: >Jason Merrill (jason@cygnus.com) wrote: >: >> There is. 'char' is used for character values, 'unsigned char' and >: >> 'signed char' are used for bytes. 'char' is not the same type as either >: >> of the other two. [...] >Why then does "short" not provide a similar capability for wide characters? Because "short" is already defined to be the same as "signed short". >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". -- Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au