220 29085 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Hans Guijt Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Removing trivial undefined behaviour Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 58 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <35daf87a-bf1d-46de-b16c-c2965fbadc8f@isocpp.org> <9e242562-aba1-4f8d-8e0a-b2de34f6a10b@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1740_1014560637.1477466455111" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477466487 11249 195.159.176.226 (26 Oct 2016 07:21:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:21:27 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCAJXIV3ZQEBBWFSYHAAKGQE3HHT7GA@isocpp.org Wed Oct 26 09:21:23 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f69.google.com ([209.85.218.69]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bzIWB-0008FI-ON for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:20:59 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f69.google.com with SMTP id d185sf70794871oig.1 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:21:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=l2k6ucuwCjWn7x0E/07wjIu7Hh9ukJU9Zr3tJBelzcI=; b=tPb6ZgEL9fauFIojVbDK0TYqtBBU7DxS29wpYS6/HP9BPaYIJvdsaaVa5z9je/oqGn 4ELKqngacqwm2z4vNgNxgofszZXi/8oLvZ6n28XjgpJdfp7NTDNcMk5sop1/OFn5FL6f QTN32ZdvfKOTgPq7Ejt8t94B5CsrvRI3gGVcp9duOvw+5+LUvQdhgkZMTNqIJXDpT29Q iaTuNwG/JLrKfhgvHAHYlWWRgF5TdsrNJ+lGR//3uPeH4ghihelfhATD+wOV3n1GgW/n VJUXd/HoE17N1vklovM5sSKSAQTLjjWXYJnC3GKsHa5+jfQEPxFPgK+WimcW9o6lO0je +tAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=l2k6ucuwCjWn7x0E/07wjIu7Hh9ukJU9Zr3tJBelzcI=; b=DPf+CqBVdOnXr3lnhhB+LM64jPLTF2YVz/MlPYqH2Khta5BYIdv900CJv/5XCTjGJ2 hEdEFszL+tXHhXYWiZM5cAHUG05lqZY4fTdqqfE3MtPe45dhUz667kDTcGFVvBiP7Ws3 SmS7f/Zsv+b1kiPeGCaflyuFEPgiQ2dBSCoUd9jNRgv8axNwQsgRNl6itiKoquNhg9LF hFyMDY2PW+Njec4+xEbF2lWVyPDyPxOjD21WRfxcBVTWATaogCzoiwbh2ZPXDM9xdYb0 v98f1ERm+o+eJObHu6uwZ2z8cNv+MqiDGKWFtnNQ63zQVhTc1NrDJgR4SkwSR1riB50H 3Smw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvedvtglSwrUu8AadM4l4lxnhm05hQUeJPzgbllMfJUFdxzIuzgBUCutnwPq7uu7lw== X-Received: by 10.157.6.197 with SMTP id 63mr217128otx.85.1477466461983; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.9.229 with SMTP id 98ls306630ioj.10.gmail; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.196.194 with SMTP id v185mr372544itf.4.1477466456466; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:20:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9e242562-aba1-4f8d-8e0a-b2de34f6a10b@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: hguijtra@xs4all.nl Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:29085 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1740_1014560637.1477466455111 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1741_73607209.1477466455111" ------=_Part_1741_73607209.1477466455111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:11:26 AM UTC+2, T. C. wrote: > > > Because they are meant to be used as isdigit((unsigned char) c). > Great, in that case I'm sure there is no opposition to changing the signature to reflect this requirement? It's a much cleaner solution than requiring a cast in every invocation, after all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/d24d9d41-d5ba-47ed-8e98-915f84063a92%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_1741_73607209.1477466455111 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:11:26 AM UTC+2, T.= C. wrote:

Because they are meant to be used as isdigit((unsigned cha= r) c).
=C2=A0
Great, in that case I&= #39;m sure there is no opposition to changing the signature to reflect this= requirement? It's a much cleaner solution than requiring a cast in eve= ry invocation, after all.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/d24d9d41-d5ba-47ed-8e98-915f84063a92= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_1741_73607209.1477466455111-- ------=_Part_1740_1014560637.1477466455111-- .