On Dec 5, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
OBringing bit-fields into the matter is just confusing things since
you
can't have pointers to bit-fields, but anyway char is not in a
comma-separated set with signed char or unsigned char and for
DR#315 it
was proposed to say that whether char bit-fields have the same
signedness
as non-bit-fields is unspecified.
Ah, yeah, simple misread on my part. I meant to use it as a way of
identifying when two types are different. Though, [ searching ]
curious how it doesn't state that directly, but leaves one to assume
it. :-( I think I see value in a reference implementation for the
language. :-)
