Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Java blunders Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <7yf7pbm3gs9r$.1kq8rlnls3wt5$.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e5160e2be48f1ea550cf61512446f525"; logging-data="4202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+y9slOfW4TFQKTChVO71xbTwhrkHZ3wFY=" User-Agent: Pan/0.139 (Sexual Chocolate; GIT bf56508 git://git.gnome.org/pan2) Cancel-Lock: sha1:kTz3Hkyeu/XZizURDwcK6DwT3DM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:29228 On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:23:44 -0700, Roedy Green wrote: > You would not make byte unsigned. It is far too late for that. You would > add a ubyte unsigned type. > Or introduce an 'unsigned' qualifier that would only be valid for numeric primitives. Its not a big change to the language because Java already uses qualifiers, e.g. static and final. I'd prefer this to introducing a new primitive type. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |