Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:47:50 -0800 (AKDT) From: Steve Howe <un_x@anchorage.net> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970601234203.1753D-100000@aak.anchorage.net> In-Reply-To: <199706010645.QAA12329@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > Because neither is equivalent to the "default" signedness. > > const char * is _not_ equivalent to const unsigned char *, or const > signed char *. i would appreciate it if you could explain further - why? any char * can _only_ be signed or unsigned, even if it's the default that makes it so. ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sleep: a sign a caffeine deprivation ... http://www.anchorage.net/~un_x -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970601234203.1753D-100000>