22 Jul
2011
22 Jul
'11
1:51 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 07/22/2011 04:13 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
Right, instead you have to write BOOST_CHAR16_T, which is defined as boost::char16_t or char16_t depending on availability of C++0x or Microsoft char16_t. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly.
Or, as I said, you use boost::char16, which is a typedef to char16_t if available.
No macro, no ugliness, portable and safe.
Ah! Sorry, I missed the lack of _t. Yes, that would be a better approach. --Beman