Re: Meaning of unsigned char

Frederick Gotham wrote:
Robert Gamble posted:

unsigned char

I myself prefer a different form:

char unsigned

The vast majority of programmers prefer the first form and with good
reason, when you start mixing things up in unusual and unintuitive ways
it makes it difficult to read and more likely that someone will make a
mistake while doing so (such as the one you made above).
The original poster should note that some programmers may deem as
"perverse", styles which are different from their own -- not unlike how
a heterosexual might deem homosexuality to be perverse.

That's not even worth a response.


Labeling it as "perverse" because it clashes with other people's styles
borders on fascist ideals not unlike one expressing and asserting one's
homphobia.

Google (via Princeton) defines perverse as "marked by a disposition to
oppose and contradict" and "contrary", "obstinate", "wayward". So
Keith has a strong opinion of your style as I suspect most programmers
would as well but, unlike yourself, he provided sound rationale for his
opinion and didn't attack you for disagreeing with him like you did.
It should also be noted that others have objected to your "style" in
the past so it can't come as a surprise to you that your insistence on
using it here would evoke a response, especially given the value of
clear and concise code in this group.

Kieth Thompson likes to write "unsigned char"... great! Would you not
consider it fascist that he labels any other perfectly conforming way of
doing it as "perverse"?

No, I can't begin to imagine how you could justify calling that fascist
but please don't feel it neccessary to try to explain it to me.

The original poster should note that any human being who doesn't suffer
from severe mental retardation should be able to understand that "char
unsigned" and "unsigned char" are equivalent.

You don't take criticism very well do you?

Not when people are trying to persuade me that there's an inherent flaw in
writing "char unsigned". Both from reading the Standard, and from my own
programming experience, I have not been convinced that "char unsigned" is
bad style.


It is a shame that someone who was starting to build up a good amount of
respect for themselves in this group would be willing to so quickly
throw it away by resorting to imature, child-like, personal attacks on
well-respected regulars for no good reason.

Firstly, I made no personal attack.

Secondly, respect is fleeting on Usenet. I'm usually accepted quite
graciously at the beginning on newsgroups such as this one, but then when I
don't immediately submit to fascism such as "Don't write it that way, it
confuses us", or "Use signed integer types, not unsigned", the transparency
of any perceived respect becomes apparent.

Two points to make:

(1) I like to write "char unsigned".
(2) I prefer to use unsigned integer types where possible.

I am respected until I choose to defend my way of doing things, and then
blatantly disrespected when I don't immediately succumb to the pressure. It
doesn't take much thought to realise that the concept of respect is a bit
wish-washy here.

But you didn't defend your way of doing things, you attacked Keith for
presenting a valid criticism (for which he provided sound reasoning),
lost your cool, and compared opinionated coding style differences to
homophobia. I personally don't share your preference and I don't think
you should expect to get very far convincing others to accept it when
you haven't even been able to defend it but that's not what I objected
to. I think that you greatly over-reacted to legitimate criticism.

I don't seek respect from this group. I seek interesting discussion. I seek
to further my own skill in C. It seems that usage of "char unsigned" breeds
contempt around here. That's unfortunate.

The fact that you continue to use a style that you know many people
find unclear when you haven't been able to successfully defend your way
is annoying. What breeds contempt is you using terms like "severe
mental retardation", and calling people fascists for criticizing you
instead of trying to defend your style on its merits.

Perhaps if I write it enough,
people will see that, as far as the International Standard is concerned,
it's a perfectly conforming, variant word ordering of "unsigned char".

Nobody is arguing that it isn't perfectly acceptable from a Standard
perspective but there are plenty of legal constructions that many
people would find repugnant.


You have been here long enough to know that such a response wouldn't
garner you any support or sympathy.


It seems to be the only way to get through to some people. Without going
off-topic, I'll give a quick summary of a little discussion which took
place over on comp.lang.c++: A person posted seeking advice on using
arrays. I cordially posted advice on using arrays. Regulars were quick to
reply that "arrays are dangerous", and that the original poster should use
the Standard Library's "vector" facility. I responded that arrays are not
dangerous, unless they're used by not-so-apt programmers. Sometimes I have
to use less-euphemistic terms to get the point across.

As an aside, I wasn't aware that my use of "retardation" would cause such a
flurry. If the group would rather that I not use it in such a context, I'll
gladly oblige.

Most people don't take kindly to being referred to as having "severe
mental retardation", go figure.


Hopefully this can be chalked up to you having a bad day but I hope you
realize that your response was asinine and uncalled for.


I don't believe so. Perhaps I should start a new thread expressing my point
of view.

No, please don't.

I suggest you think twice about posting such nonsense here again if you
want to continue being taken seriously.


It appears I have lost that priviledge since I failed to succumb to the
group's pressure to write "unsigned char". Who would have thought that such
a simple thing would devalue my worth as a human being?

Oh come now, don't be so dramatic. Nobody is devalueing (devaluing?
how the heck to you spell that?) your worth as a human being and I
don't think that even your insistence to use "char unsigned" over
"unsigned char" is going to cause more than minor irritation. It was
the way you responded to valid criticism that was objectionable. I was
taken aback by your response, it is unlike you from what I have seen so
far (which has been quite positive overall), which is why I responded
the way I did.

Robert Gamble

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reading XML stream using unmanaged c++
    ... It is never safe to assume values are char *, or that they have a fixed upper bound. ... I have used the ExPat library to handle XML; the MSXML stuff is rather complex and if I ... My code below sending request to web server and getting response as XML ... where outout of above function returns xml string which is stored in ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • [PATCH] tpm: sysfs function buffer size fix
    ... No this is not ok because in several of these cases the response to the ... command is longer than tpm_cap thus the reason for the hardcoded size. ... char *buf) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Angband Gender Poll RESULTS
    ... A highly unscientific poll, yes, but here's what we got: ... I haven't done this rigorously yet but it looks like the response rate was ... in the ng play Hobbit Chase?), Galaxy, and Moria later on. ... a level 33 char, then other issues such as my thesis got in the way. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • type directly on graphic object: caret ?
    ... I would need to type characters directly on a graphic object in ... not be much problem with GDI+, using measurestring or char. ... response to the key press. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.drawing)
  • Re: When to emit diagnistics
    ... It emits a diagnostic only in the highest warning level: ... long and an int. ... This is a difficult notion for assembly programmers to grasp: ... we all know that `char' has the ...
    (comp.lang.c)
Loading