Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:43:14 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: ctype.h in C++
In-Reply-To:	<000901c0647e$8331a6a0$5fdc883e@oemcomputer>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001213134247.11254V-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Stephen Silver wrote:

Thank you for your report.

> There is a problem with the ctype.h header when used in C++: all 13
> standard functions are defined as macros, which is permissible in C, but
> not in C++.
> In particular, the compiler chokes on expressions such as
> std::tolower('A') because a namespace qualifier cannot be applied to a
> macro.

Then why doesn't the C++ compiler disable the macros in its <ctype>
(or is it <cctype>?) header?

Is the above the only problem with those macros, or are there
additional circumstances where macros don't work.  (You seem to be
saying that C++ disallows ctype macros everywhere.)

Also, do the current versions of GCC even support the std namespace
like that?

I wonder how come we never heard such complaints until now?  Andris,
could you please shed some light on this?

- Raw text -