From: Hyoyoung C. <hyo...@gm...> - 2012-05-23 11:07:01
|
It's a good information thread but off topic :P raster said, in e coding style, do not need to check sizeof(char). thanks guys. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Vincent Torri <vin...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Bluezery <oh...@gm...> wrote: >> 2012/5/23 Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@br...>: >>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 05:56:10PM +0900, Bluezery wrote: >>>> 2012/5/23 Hyoyoung Chang <hyo...@gm...>: >>>> > Maybe it's best time to talk about sizeof(char) >>>> > >>>> > Do we need to sizeof(char)? I just that is problem of coding convention. >>>> > such as (a == 0) and (!a). >>>> > Is there any predefined convention about this case? >>>> >>>> sizeof(char) may be larger (in the future if we use unicode :p) than >>>> 1. but I haven't seen yet. :) >>> >>> The C standard explicitly defines it as one. Are you thinking about >>> wchar_t? >>> Joerg >> >> How about c++?? > > same (of course), as any C prog must be run without differences when > compiled with a c++ compiler. > > Nevertheless, look at this: > > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/new/sizeof-char.html > > Vincent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel |