Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!zog.cs.cmu.edu!dlc
From: dlc@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Daryl Clevenger)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Int and Char
Message-ID: <1004@zog.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 26-Jul-86 00:35:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: zog.1004
Posted: Sat Jul 26 00:35:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Jul-86 21:56:39 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 7

I agree this is a major oversight in portability, but I think the main reason
that there is no 'signed' adjective for chars is that the representation and
interpretation for chars is too machine dependent.  That is, a machine can not
be told to interpret chars as signed if it only knows about unsigned
reprsentations.  Of course, as far as I know, any machine that uses signed
chars can interpret them as unsigned, so the 'unsigned' adjective can be
applied to chars.  Why can't everyone's machine be like a VAX :-)