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
Precedence: bulk

> 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.