From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-31 19:11:10
Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:54:32 +0100, Drazen DOTLIC wrote:
>> You are missing the point IMHO. Probably everyone *wants* to have it
>> on, for exactly the reasons you mention above. But, not all of us
>> have the luxury to do so, because we use other libraries besides
>> boost, and compile our programs as a whole (using same set of flags).
> I think that small citation from MSVC71 (ie. "1310") Help could be
> relevant here: snipped...
> By providing overloads for both the unsigned short and __wchar_t
> variations of wchar_t, you can create libraries that can easily be
> linked with code compiled with or without /Zc:wchar_t and avoid the
> to provide two different builds of the library (one with and one
> without /Zc:wchar_t enabled).
This would mean that Boost wide character implementations would have to
support __wchar_t and unsigned short for all wide character usage in order
to work with VC++ 7+. Providing overloads for all wide characters usage in
this way seems like an enormous PITA for Boost implementors. A better model
from the implementors point of view would be for Boost implementations to
use wchar_t and for Boost library implementors to provide separate versions
in which wchar_t is compiled with /Zc:wchar_t and one in which this switch
is not present, and have slightly different names for each library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk