RFD: C pointer conversions that differ in unsignedness

[Mike Stump]

On Dec 5, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> OBringing bit-fields into the matter is just confusing things since  
> you
> can't have pointers to bit-fields, but anyway char is not in a
> comma-separated set with signed char or unsigned char and for  
> DR#315 it
> was proposed to say that whether char bit-fields have the same  
> signedness
> as non-bit-fields is unspecified.

Ah, yeah, simple misread on my part.  I meant to use it as a way of  
identifying when two types are different.  Though, [ searching ]  
curious how it doesn't state that directly, but leaves one to assume  
it.  :-(  I think I see value in a reference implementation for the  
language.  :-)