Re: [boost] Win32 undefs/redefs [was File operations: Win32 question [was Re: the first version of abstract path...]]

From: Ross Smith (r-smith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 11:04:11

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 
> From: "Ross Smith" <r-smith_at_[hidden]>
> > It occurs to me that, if you're going to write all that code for every
> > API function (pair) that you use anyway, it may be simpler just to leave
> > the Windows headers out altogether and simply write your own headers
> > with just the extern declarations for FooA() and FooW() and your
> > overloaded Foo(), losing the macros completely. (Also that it probably
> > wouldn't be terribly difficult to automate the header conversion
> > process.)
> 
> No, unfortunately this doesn't work. You need the types as well, like
> CRITICAL_SECTION.

Nearly all of them are documented. CRITICAL_SECTION is one of only a
tiny handful that are opaque. If you don't want to read the native
headers because of copyright issues, check the Cygwin headers for the
missing ones.

-- 
Ross Smith ...................................... Auckland, New Zealand
r-smith_at_[hidden] ......................... http://storm.net.nz/~ross/
  "We need a new cosmology. New gods. New sacraments. Another drink."
                                                       -- Patti Smith