Date:	Sat, 03 Feb 2001 18:18:33 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	"Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id:	<3028-Sat03Feb2001181833+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<002001c08df0$71991860$2a4a893e@oemcomputer>
	(djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk)
Subject:	Re: WCHAR_* and WINT_* in limits.h
References:	<002001c08df0$71991860$2a4a893e AT oemcomputer>
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

> From: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:48:57 -0000
> 
> > Since wchar_t is short and wint_t is int, aren't these bugs?
> >
> > #define WCHAR_MIN 0
> > #define WCHAR_MAX 127
> > #define WINT_MIN 0
> > #define WINT_MAX 32767
> 
> Yes, these are wrong.

Thanks for the feedback.

> But surely they shouldn't be in limits.h anyway
> (at least with __STRICT_ANSI__ defined).  As far as I know, the WCHAR_M*
> macros are supposed to be only in wchar.h and stdint.h, and the WINT_M*
> macros only in stdint.h.

They were there for eons, doing no harm.  I don't see why should we
remove them; that could break some existing programs.  If corrected
and defined conditionally, like in stdint.h, they will continue to be
harmless.

> At the moment, DJGPP's wchar.h doesn't define WCHAR_MIN or WCHAR_MAX.

One more reason not to remove them from limits.h for the time being,
IMHO.

- Raw text -