<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<pre>>Perhaps, though I tend to think (apparently not entirely correctly) of
>"char" as being equivalent to either "signed char" or "unsigned char".
This was the same for me until I "discovered" that
char != signed char
char != unsigned char.
The grandfathers of c would have done better having
char, byte and unsigned byte instead (for example)
>In any case there's nothing that clang/libcxx ought to do. The standard
>is what it is. (Perhaps a stream which handles signed and/or unsigned
>chars differently would be useful and that seems like a plausible
>extension, but I doubt it's really worth adding.)
no. but as here are compiler and libcxx writers I decided to discuss such
a subtle detail here.
And perhaps it is possible to influence the handling of char types for
standard streams by some traits.
</pre>
<!--endarticle-->
</body>
</html>