Message-Id:	<200006161212.PAA13721@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:13:39 +0200
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	lauras AT softhome DOT net
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de
In-reply-to:	<3949F987.B37E0BC4@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis
	on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:55:20 +0200)
Subject:	Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10006161124360 DOT 8899-100000 AT acp3bf> <3949F987 DOT B37E0BC4 AT softhome DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:55:20 +0200
> From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> > 
> > Summing up what I read in the (draft) C99 standard, WEOF behaves almost
> > exactly the same as EOF, with the only exception that it is not required
> > to be negative. And wint_t is for wchar_t what int is for unsigned char: a
> > datatype large enough to hold any wide character, plus WEOF. The
> > difference is that WEOF is allowed to be within the range of wchar_t, so
> > wchar_t and wint_t can be the same.
> 
> Ahh, so it's easy to convert wint_t to unsigned and properly convert EOF
> to WEOF. So maybe it's OK to change?

Looks like it's indeed OK.

- Raw text -