Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU From: MAILER%ALASKA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Undelivered mail Message-ID: <12278@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: 12 Mar 88 08:09:54 GMT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 38 Subject: Re: sizeof(char) [Non-Deliverable: User does not exist or has never logged on] Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Received: From UWAVM(MAILER) by ALASKA with Jnet id 6971 for SXJVK@ALASKA; Fri, 11 Mar 88 23:01 AST Received: by UWAVM (Mailer X1.25) id 4687; Sat, 12 Mar 88 00:00:55 PST Date: Thu, 10 Mar 88 22:08:16 GMT Reply-To: Info-C@BRL.ARPA Sender: Info-C List From: Doug Gwyn Subject: Re: sizeof(char) Comments: To: info-c@brl-smoke.arpa To: Vic Kapella In article <17395@watmath.waterloo.edu> rbutterworth@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ray Butterworth) writes: >If C left the units of sizeof up to the implementor it would solve >a lot of problems (e.g. none of the multi-byte character mess that >is now in the proposed standard, and the problems of having to have >functions that know about the two different types of strings). >Other than allowing sloppily written code to continue to be written, >I can see no reason whatsoever for requiring that sizeof(char) be 1. >In Japan it could be 2, while on machines that do a lot of bit >manipulation it could be 16. Both are appropriate for their needs. Yes! I would appreciate it if you would send in a comment suggesting that the approach in X3J11/86-205 (my sizeof(short char)==1 proposal) should be considered in place of the proposed multi-byte character support. That is somewhat more ambitious than your sizeof(char)>=1 proposal, in that it provides an extra data type, so if that bothers you you could suggest merely that the requirement sizeof(char)==1 be dropped (which would leave the door open for later adoption of something ling X3J11/86-205, but unfortunately would not eliminate the proposed multi-byte character features).