Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.com> writes:
[...]
> I'm here to converse about C, not deal with mentally retarded
> dickheads that are too stupid to get their head around a simple re-
> ordering of words. And I'll re-iterate on that again: You TRULLY are
> of extremely limited intelligence if you can't get your head around
> "unsigned char" versus "char unsigned".
[...]

I'm not aware of anybody here who is unable to get his head around
"unsigned char" vs. "char unsigned". We understand perfectly well
that they're both legal. Many of us simply *dislike* "char unsigned"
and find it counterintuitive, strongly preferring the much more common
"unsigned char".

I will not accuse you of mental retardation for failing to grasp the
difference between being unable to understand something and disliking
something. I do accuse you of extreme rudeness and thoughtlessness,
at least in this one instance. Accusing those who disagree with you
of stupidity is counterproductive, don't you think?

Getting back to the technical issue that was actually being discussed,
consider the following perfectly legal translation unit:

const char unsigned x = 'x';
char const unsigned y = 'y';
char unsigned const z = 'z';

I find all three definitions to be of roughly equally poor style,
because they order the keywords in a manner that's unusual and, IMHO,
counterintuitive. The second is the worst, because it shoves the
"const" keyword into the middle of the type name, but I consider it
only slightly worse than the others. I suspect that most C
programmers would share my opinion.

I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
whatever reason. I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but
merely to you to understand that those of us who do not share
your opinion are not idiots.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"