Parameter Types in Old-Style Function Definitions

[Chris Torek]

In article <1990Sep15.011126.23112 at jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
hugh at dgp.toronto.edu (D. Hugh Redelmeier) writes:
>The fact that the default argument promotions are implementation
>dependant is quite unfortunate.

Indeed.

Note that this problem would not exist, had X3J11 chosen the correct
(i.e., sign-preserving) extension rules.  As things stand now, you
CANNOT calculate the type of an unsigned expression in a widening
context.  Apparently the committee decided that the value represented
by some bit pattern was more important than the type needed to hold
that value---not minding the fact that without knowing that type, it
is not possible to describe that value!
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris at cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris