Re: [OT] Re: Bug#169450: wrong assumption on char signedness
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:13:05PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:08:02PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I looked at the source code, and it seems that one of the arguments
> > being compared is a gchar (probably a char defined by GTK libs). Smurf
> > itself doesn't specify whether the variable is signed or not. Anybody
> > knows how gchar is supposed to behave? Should it be signed or unsigned?
>
> <rant>
> When I see stuff like that, I can't help but wonder why the h*ll a GUI
> library needs to mess around with the basic C types. I cannot think of
[snip]
Point taken, but your rant is directed at the wrong audience. Try the GTK
mailing lists instead? :-)
T
--
When solving a problem, take care that you do not become part of the problem.
Reply to: