Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Style (was: C-DATABASE B-PLUS a quick look)
Message-ID: <9256@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Jan 89 03:00:27 GMT
References: <2537@xyzzy.UUCP> <189@becker.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <189@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes:
>	It might be useful to add that testing for EOF is
>	possible - this raises the question of its value.
>	Ought it to be -1, or 0xFF, or what? I'm confused
>	about what the value of "toupper(EOF)" should be...

EOF is not required to be defined as -1, but that is really the
most practical choice in every environment I've seen.  It must
NOT be the same as a possible character value, so 0xFF is wrong.

I don't think EOF is supposed to be a valid argument for toupper(),
just for the is*() functions.