From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9438 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2007 00:54:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 9430 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2007 00:54:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:54:29 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (97.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.97]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C5D3DA251; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:54:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id AD8604F718; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:54:25 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17894.9280.176924.436257@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:54:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Mark Kettenis , eliz@gnu.org, dewar@adacore.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, Mathieu.Lacage@sophia.inria.fr, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Signed/unsigned character arrays are not strings In-Reply-To: <20070228134640.GA11261@caradoc.them.org> References: <17888.39894.136355.447008@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <1172390381.2584.18.camel@mathieu> <20070225195350.GA12811@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070226004457.GA9926@caradoc.them.org> <17892.4014.160191.285423@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <45E42969.1030007@adacore.com> <20070227131442.GA20718@caradoc.them.org> <20070227215316.GA26262@caradoc.them.org> <200702272211.l1RMBVvI028239@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070228134640.GA11261@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.94.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 > While I haven't seen responses to some of my arguments in favor of the > new behavior, it's obvious that I'm in the minority here. Yes, but I think choices should be based on reason, not gut feeling. The change didn't receive much attention for a month, so it can't be that great a problem. >... > By the way, I was thinking about this last night and wondered if > this is hinting at a sensible meaning for "print /s" ... I like this approach because it's simple. Jim's is too complicated (well, for me, at least!). -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob