...

...

There's boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers/cwctype and boost/compatibility/cpp_c_headers/cctype. Can we use those instead and be assured of portability? Everyone seems to be reinventing workarounds for these nasty little beasts.

...

I was under impression that we should only use these headers where there are no native headers with appropriate name. Isn't it true?

Not sure. It says in the documentation: <http://www.boost.org/libs/compatibility/index.html>

Joel de Guzman wrote:

I think it is the right place for a common workaround to such problems. We too had the same problem as you had and had to write some similar compatibility workarounds. Other libraries also provide some sort of workaround (e.g. <http://www.boost.org/boost/regex/config/cwchar.hpp>). I think it would be best to have a single place to put them.

I had used these headers for this purpose. Then I came to a point where one of them wasn't appropriate so I wanted it changed. Then I was told it couldn't be done be cause they were automatically generated. I was told they weren't designed to be used for this purpose. So I had to use the current method. I asked a couple of times what good they were for and it was explained to me a couple of times but I never did understand the explanation so I just moved on. Robert Ramey