Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!gatech!akgua!codas!peora!ucf-cs.ucf.edu!novavax!houligan!dave@murphy.UUCP
From: dave@murphy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: is it really necessary for character values to be positive?
Message-ID: <44@houligan.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Jan-87 12:54:10 EST
Article-I.D.: houligan.44
Posted: Wed Jan 14 12:54:10 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Jan-87 06:15:59 EST
Organization: Gould Electronics, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
Lines: 44

Summary: does EOF have to be -1?

In article <289@haddock.UUCP>, karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer) types
(in response to an earlier article that I wrote):

>Suppose I am using such a system, and one of the characters -- call it '@' --
>has a negative value.  The following program will not work:
>    main() { int c; ... c = getchar(); ... if (c == '@') ... }
>Note that getchar() returns an UNSIGNED char on success; this is to guarantee
>that none of them compare equal to EOF.  Thus, any printing character that I
>want to enclose in single quotes had better be positive, or it becomes VERY
>awkward to use.

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't see where it should cause a major
problem.  Assuming that the character set in use doesn't take up the entire
range of int values, all that is necessary is to pick a value for EOF that
doesn't correspond to any character value.  (Newcomers: keep in mind that
the return value of getchar and getc is defined as being an int, not a
char, even though it is often treated like a char.)  This way, getchar can
return a possibly negative value, and EOF won't collide with any legit
character value.

Would defining EOF to be something other than -1 cause a problem?  I don't
think so.  K&R says, on p. 144: "The standard library defines the symbolic
constant EOF to be -1 (with a #define in the file 'stdio.h'), but tests
should be written in terms of EOF, not -1, so as to be independent of the
specific value."  I don't this is a situation like with NULL where the
actual value has a special meaning in the language definition, so I don't
see why it couldn't be changed.  People who are testing for -1 or for a
negative value instead of using EOF deserve whatever they get.

If anyone knows of any reason why the value of EOF can't be implementation-
specific, I'd like to hear about it.
---
"I used to be able to sing the blues, but now I have too much money."
-- Bruce Dickinson

Dave Cornutt, Gould Computer Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
UUCP:  ...!{sun,pur-ee,brl-bmd,bcopen}!gould!dcornutt
 or ...!{ucf-cs,allegra,codas}!novavax!houligan!dcornutt
ARPA: dcornutt@gswd-vms.arpa (I'm not sure how well this works)

"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."