🚀 go-pugleaf

diamond@tbj.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:

>Actually one famous mistake is already known with 64 bit machines.
>8-bit char, 16-bit short, 32-bit int, 64-bit long is technically valid
>but it is weird for int to have a different size from both short and long.

So why is this *weird*? One could argue with equal validity that
it is *weird* to have a 32-bit int because, after all, the PDP-11 had
a 16-bit int.

>Another mistake has been known for a couple of decades, making char the
>unit size for most C operations when characters actually require 16 or
>32 bits (or varying numbers of bits in some encoding schemes) while the
>most popular unit size is 8 bits.

I agree with you -- `char' is really `byte' mispelled. It's only because
ASCII characters fit into a `byte' that it was named `char' in the first 
place.
-- 
Andy V (A Digital spoke, not a Digital Spokesperson)