On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:14 PM Lyberta <lyberta_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > If you do want a distinct type, why not just standardize on uint8_t? Why
> > does it need to be a new type that is distinct from that, too?
>
> Here's a small example why both "char" and "uint8_t" are horrible types
> as implemented now on all major implementations:
>
>
> std::uint8_t small_number = 65;
> std::cout << small_number << '\n';
>
> This will print "A" instead of 65 on all implementations I've tested it
> on. This breaks templates that do text processing.


Hm? This has very little to do with text processing. Someone made a choice
that ostream << small number yields a character.

If you want specific formatting of a value, you implement and call a value
formatter function that returns a string.
Or you define a value class and define << for it.

Personally, I think
> we need to add "char8_t" and also a "shortest" type so implementations
> can use "unsigned shortest" to implement std::uint8_t.


That's called uint_least8_t, right? If it was smaller than 8 bits, it would
be useless for UTF-8.

And I doubt that there is any platform that supports C++11 or higher and
where uint8_t != uint_least8_t.

markus