🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <663@dg_rtp.UUCP> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>True, true.  But ANSI is likely to decide that sizeof(char) MUST ALWAYS
>BE one (and I think this is universally true on existing
>implementations... if I'm wrong, somebody let me know).

X3J11 as it stands requires sizeof(char)==1.  I have proposed that
this requirement be removed, to better support applications such as
Asian character sets and bitmap display programming.  Along with
this, I proposed a new data type such that sizeof(short char)==1.
It turns out that the current draft proposed standard has to be
changed very little to support this distinction between character
objects (char) and smallest-addressable objects (short char).  This
is much better, I think, than a proposal that introduced (long char)
for text characters.

Unfortunately, much existing C code believes that "char" means "byte".
My proposal would allow implementors the freedom to decide whether
supporting this existing practice is more important than the benefits
of making a distinction between the two concepts.

It is possible to write code that doesn't depend on sizeof(char)==1,
and some C programmers are already careful about this.  Transition
to the more general scheme would occur gradually (if at all) for
existing C implementations, with only implementors of systems for
the Asian market and of bitmap display architectures initially taking
advantage of the opportunity to make these types different sizes.