Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!indri!aplcen!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: int divided by unsigned.
Message-ID: <18296@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jun 89 05:33:50 GMT
References: <1549@frog.UUCP> <13958@lanl.gov>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 19

In article <13958@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>... It would _obviously_ be better if [signed] semantics of [int divided
>by unsigned] expression[s] were the _default_ and the present default were
>the one which required the extra syntax.

And it would `obviously' be better if the sky were green and grass were
blue.  Good grief, what makes your `obvious' any more obvious than mine?
(Now, I do happen to think that the pANS' `value-preserving' sign semantics
are inferior to PCC's `unsigned-preserving' semantics, but I have a very
specific reason for thinking this.  I do not have any particular reason
to believe that the result of combining signed and unsigned should be
one or the other.  I am happy with things as is, and would probably be
just as happy if they had always been the other way.)

Instead of simply asserting `it is obvious that ...', you might explain
why you feel that way, for those of us to whom it is not obvious.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris