Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>]

Brad Chapman <kakadu_croc@yahoo.com> writes:

|> Everyone,
|> 
|> 	From reading this thread, I believe I have come up with several reasons,
|> IMHO, why the old min()/max() macros were not usable:
|> 
|> 	- They did not take into account non-typesafe comparisons
|> 	- They were too generic
|> 	- Some versions, IIRC, relied on typeof()
|> 	- They did not take into account signed/unsigned conversions
|> 
|> 	I have also discovered one problem with the new three-arg min()/max()
|> macro: it forces both arguments to be the same, thus preventing signed/unsigned
|> comparisons.

There is no such thing as signed/unsigned comparision in C.  Any
comparison is either signed or unsigned, depending on whether the common
type of arguments after applying the usual arithmetic conversions is
signed or unsigned.

|> 	Thus, I have a humble idea: add another type argument!

This does not bye you anything because the there can only be one common
type anyway.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                  "And now for something
SuSE Labs                                        completely different."
Andreas.Schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5