Re: changing ZLE_CHAR_T?

[Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wayne Davison wrote:
> One thing I don't like about the current definition of ZLE_CHAR_T is
> that, in the non-multibyte code, you don't end up with a ZLE_STRING_T
> if you take the address of a ZLE_CHAR_T variable (due to ZLE_CHAR_T
> being an "int" and ZLE_STRING_T being an "unsigned char *").  Since
> we have a ZLE_INT_T for those variables that need to be able to hold
> a ZLEEOF value, I thought it would be cleaner to change ZLE_CHAR_T.

This is potentially a good idea, but you will need to be careful since
those "int" definitions for the variables now marked as ZLE_CHAR_T have
been around a very long time and it's not necessarily clear if they will
hold an EOF or not, though if they do they should certainly now be
ZLE_INT_T.  The distinction is quite recent and not necessarily
consistently applied throughout.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web page still at http://www.pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk/