Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:18:44 -0500
Message-ID: <5018AE22.152C@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:18:42 -0400
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
Organization: PF
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better?
References: <juiuqb$rau$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5011E247.1F7B@mindspring.com> <jut5td$fei$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5012954D.20C@mindspring.com> <juuk6k$fal$1@dont-email.me> <lnpq7g6bco.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <juv92v$i0n$1@dont-email.me> <te-dnWYbGZ2hqIvNnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@lyse.net> <MPG.2a8225bcdb731a4798968a@news.eternal-september.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.156.228.107
X-Trace: sv3-kLprDB9TuU0J8eUqViebidzYIKSLVV+Mu4KDATyUgS+d7pXJlfAiw1UkgWkdiGAuQcRwihUIRZB/YE+!z1NsiJqalvUyXnmLB3UxmCjFW419np/FVNVUprvxPY+uV3NTcs7ftCTRnLJWTeQ81Ba7dB6rcudr!EQr5ID7j7wA=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2383
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:24038

Philip Lantz wrote:
> 
> David Brown wrote:
> > Les Cargill wrote:
> > > Keith Thompson wrote:
> > >> Les Cargill writes:
> > >>> Type conversions must be made explicit.
> > >>
> > >> I presume that's meant as advice, not a language rule.
> > >
> > > Sorry - yes, it's advice.
> >
> > Good advice.
> >
> > For my work, it is more than advice - it is a style rule,
> > and I enforce
> > it with compiler warnings (-Wconversion -Wsign-conversion in gcc).
> 
> Do you really? Would you use casts in situations like these?
>   1. char c = 'x';
>   2. int *p = malloc(N * sizeof *p);
>   3. free(p);
>   4. printf("%c\n", c);
>   5. while (*s != '\0')
>          n = n * 10 + (*s - '0');
> 
> I would find them to be undesirable clutter.

I was thinking the same thing.

And I think you meant to imply 
that (*s) is an expression of type char.

If n is of type int and also not negative,
then you could write without having to use parentheses
    n = n * 10 - '0' + *s;
with no possibility of overflow.

-- 
pete