From erik@sran8.sra.co.jp Sat Nov 17 05:01:20 1990 Return-Path: Message-Id: <9011170400.AA23621@sran8.sra.co.jp> Reply-To: erik@sra.co.jp From: Erik M. van der Poel X-Sequence: wg15rin@dkuug.dk 20 Errors-To: wg15rin-request@dkuug.dk To: donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com Cc: wg15rin@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: Paper, again Date: Sat, 17 Nov 90 12:59:50 +0900 Sender: erik@sran8.sra.co.jp X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 > However, Keld makes a comment about the usefulness of CHAR_BIT: > > Well, I am still not convinced of the merits of CHAR_BIT. > If CHAR_BIT is set to 8 in the national profile, would that > exclude 16 bit charset systems from conforming to the standard? > That would exclude ISO 6937 based systems in Europe, for instance. > > If not, what good does the CHAR_BIT specification do? > > Actually we were quite careful when specifying the Danish national > profile not to exclude useful implementations. We did not require > ISO C, for example. Would specification of CHAR_BIT not lead to > the same problems? Isn't CHAR_BIT the ANSI C number of bits in a "char"? Wouldn't 16-bit char sets fit in a wchar_t? What's ISO 6937? Erik