🚀 go-pugleaf

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote:

>Using 'L' forces the compiler to generate the string literal as a
>wchar_t* string.  Using the TEXT() or _T() macros instead allows the
>string literal to be either char* or wchar_t* depending on whether the
>project is compiled for Unicode or not.  Same with the TCHAR and
>LPTSTR macros - they map to either char or wchar_t accordingly as
>well.  That is the portability that I was referring to earlier.

IMAO, this portability is a false god - it clutters up your source code
with all sorts of junk for no benefit. Far better just to write it for
Unicode. Or if Unicode is inappropriate, then write it for 'Ansi'
(MBCS). Trying to write for both, though, is a mess. 

(Yes, I'm currently stripping all this crud out of my source code - how
did you guess? I'd love for the standard to support a compiler flag so
that even the L"" wasn't required (perhaps needing S"" instead for octet
char strings)).

Your opinion is obviously different.

Alan Bellingham
-- 
10th Anniversary ACCU Conference: 11-14 April 2007 - Oxford, UK
(Booking now open: see http://accu.org/index.php/conferences for details)