Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-23 01:29:35

>>>There's boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers/cwctype and
>>>boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers/cctype. Can we use those
>>>instead and be assured of portability? Everyone seems to be
>>>reinventing workarounds for these nasty little beasts.
>> I was under impression that we should only use these headers where there
>> no native headers with appropriate name. Isn't it true?

>Not sure. It says in the documentation:

Joel de Guzman wrote:

>I think it is the right place for a common workaround to such problems.
>We too had the same problem as you had and had to write some similar
>compatibility workarounds. Other libraries also provide some sort of
>workaround (e.g. <>).
>I think it would be best to have a single place to put them.

I had used these headers for this purpose. Then I came to a point where one
of them wasn't appropriate so I wanted it changed. Then I was told it
couldn't be done be cause they were automatically generated. I was told they
weren't designed to be used for this purpose. So I had to use the current
method. I asked a couple of times what good they were for and it was
explained to me a couple of times but I never did understand the explanation
so I just moved on.

Robert Ramey

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