Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Ansel" Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Restricted unsigned integer range would have been better? Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:32:23 -0600 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: FFhx8ztBVAmBc3B2Kk2mtA.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:23714 "Keith Thompson" wrote in message news:ln8ve88hsl.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org... > "Ansel" writes: > [...] >> You can still have the full-width unsigned types, they just wouldn't be >> *arithmetic* types. I don't know if that would work out for embedded >> systems. It should be adequate though for, say, representation of >> character >> types. That noted, still "unworkable"? > > Probably. > > What do you mean when you say they wouldn't be arithmetic types? Would > it not be possible to perform arithmetic on them? > Would it be possible to perform arithmetic on them? Answer: no. (Or *extremely* limited operations, say, increment and decrement). (I didn't like the way you asked it. Too much potential for confusion).