Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alan Bellingham (alan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-18 10:27:17

Bill Kempf:

>You could argue that "it does the right thing" when it compiles with your
>solution, but this is a change in behavior, not a "fix" for the macro misuse
>in the Windows API.

I would indeed argue that ... I _like_ the overloading, and thus far,
this file has been for my use only.

> I'd support a fix like the one I give above (and hope
>that MS does this themselves someday soon, since a user header that does
>this is only going to be problematic with regards to inclusion order), but
>I'd oppose one like you gave.

I also agree that the best solution would be MS 'fixing' their headers
for the reason you give.

Anyway, there's always the possibility of doing both:

 #if defined(CharLower)
 # undef CharLower
 # if defined(ALLOW_OVERLOAD)
     inline char * CharLower(char * Src) { return CharLowerA(Src); }
     inline wchar_t* CharLower(wchar_t* Src) { return CharLowerW(Src); }
 # if defined(UNICODE)
     inline wchar_t* CharLower(wchar_t* Src) { return CharLowerW(Src); }
 # else
     inline char* CharLower(char* Src) { return CharLowerA(Src); }
 # endif

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at