Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:29:24 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com> Cc: colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? Message-ID: <20041221192924.GA27658@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <E1CgpNK-000D1Y-0Z@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041221114103.053aa0b8@localhost> <E1CgpNK-000D1Y-0Z@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:08:50PM +0000, Pete French wrote: > > It's the C language. While it's claimed to be "portable," it really doesn't > > address integer size and endianism well enough. > > All the more reason to be careful you might have thought :-) Mind you, > trying to explain to students why 'long x = 65535;' set x equal to -1 > always made me feel like I was trying to appologise for the indefensible! Buggy compilers are indefensible, yes, but why try to apologise for it? 'long x = 65535;' will not set x to -1, even with 16-bit ints. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041221192924.GA27658>