C str representation - const char* vs const unsigned char*

Question

I asked this on Taking an index out of const char* argument along with another question, but debate got only to the first question, so I splitted it to a different thread.

Question:

Is there any reason anyone would ever want to represent a C string as and not as ? 而不是吗？

• On one hand, I see the commonly used representation of C str as all the time. 。
• On the other hand, using sometimes forces a cast to unsigned, like in the example linked above. 有时会强制强制转换为无符号，就像上面链接的示例一样。

Thanks,

Answer 1

Yes, of course a general read-only string should be const char * , since char (with unspecified implementation-specified signedness) is the default type for a character.

In other words, a literal like "foo" consists of char , not unsigned char , elements.

Of course you can interpret the characters as unsigned if you feel like it, but then you might need a cast.