Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/03/13/15:43:36
Chris Faylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:58:20PM +0100, Levente Farkas wrote:
> >Chris Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:07:43PM +0100, Levente Farkas wrote:
> >> >hi,
> >> >I thing it's a real bug in ctype.h in cygwin:
> >> >-------------
> >> >#define _U 01
> >> >#define _L 02
> >> >#define _N 04
> >> >#define _S 010
> >> >#define _P 020
> >> >#define _C 040
> >> >#define _X 0100
> >> >#define _B 0200
> >> >--------------
> >> >and there is no undef pair of these defines. ok you can use every
> >> >name with starts with _, but it's a real nightmare (the _X is the
> >> >worst).
> >>
> >> Um, how would you undef these? They're used in macros.
> >
> >that's another problem:-)
> >but simple after use
> >#undef _X
>
> Are you actually saying that you want to do something like this:
>
> #include <ctype.h>
>
> main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> printf ("%d", isalpha(*argv[0]));
> #undef _U
> #undef _L
> #undef _N
> #undef _S
> #undef _P
> #undef _C
> #undef _X
> #undef _B
>
> Somehow, I don't see the point.
>
> If you're advocating that these be undefined in ctype.h, then:
>
> That won't work.
>
> >>It was my understanding that symbols that begin with "_" were supposed
> >>to be the province of a system library and are not supposed to be used
> >>by user programs. Or was it "__". I can never remember.
> >
> >almost both, but such a macros are anoying anyway.
>
> Uh huh.
simple look into glic-s header files (which don't use these macros).
why ?:-)
-- lfarkas
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -