Just commenting from the side-lines :-)
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote: [...]
Using function instead of macro won't work in all the cases, e.g. in this one:
_TCHAR buf[100] = _T("foo")
I would rather avoid such constructs precisely because of the compiler support problems. We have to support _T because of legacy windows code, but if we write the code then it should be very easy to avoid its use entirely:
_TCHAR buf[100]; .... and at the start of the functions using buf: {
unicode(buf,sizeof(buf),"foo"); ...
or as a macro: STR2UNICODE(buf,"foo");
with a secondary use as:
wstr=unicode(NULL,0,"foo"); // allocate and return a unicode string
-- I still think my teststr() idea is worth doing. Do you want an implementation?
I like the idea, but do not need such Unicode strings generator for my test :-) Can you implement it with a small real test which shows advantages of teststr()?
I like the teststr() idea too. It's a bit complex but it sounds like it could help write better tests.
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ It really galls me that most of the computer power in the world is wasted on screen savers. Chris Caldwell from the GIMPS project http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm