Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: derived types
Message-ID: <6874@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 16:10:37 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6874
Posted: Tue Jan 22 16:10:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 05:11:56 EST
References: <7579@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31

> what we really want is to define c, as knuth did with mix, to say that
> char has a minimum holding value of 2^8-1 and short 2^16-1 and long
> 2^32-1 with int being bound to either short or long.  this eliminates
> the implementation problems on all machines because all you do is
> select the smallest element that will hold the specified type.
> 
>                           shades@mit-oz.arpa

Except that we'd have to say something like 2^6-1 and 2^12-1.
This is a case where even I would not try to make every program as
portable as it could be.  If there were some reason to assume that
chars could hold 2^8-1, I would assume it (and include a warning).
But if the standard specifies this, it would leave some machines
with an option of (i) non-conforming implementations, (ii) no
implementations, or (iii) wasted space and inefficient code just
to meet this requirement.  And if the standard specifies 2^6-1,
then many people (including me) would be discouraged from writing
standard-conforming programs.

I try to make Pascal programs portable too (standard-conforming
and with a certain amount of care, with exceptions carefully
encapsulated).  But if I need "set of char", I do it and warn
that it might not be portable for that reason.

-- Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."