Thomas Dickey wrote: > That may be true, but other platforms (including Linux) deal in ugly > header file internals. The reason for it with Microsoft is that the > names beginning with underscores don't match the behavior of the > similarly-named POSIX names.
That may have been true, at one time. In the days of MSC-6 on MS-DOS it was pretty much universally true, but today Microsoft seem to have gone overboard, prefixing underscores to almost everything, even when the functionality for standard names and prefixed names is identical. There are certainly instances where the Microsoft functionality does differ from the POSIX norm, and in such cases the decoration of the name with the underscore is appropriate; there are many other cases where this is untrue -- the cynic in me would suggest that this is a Microsoft conspiracy to maximise vendor lock-in, for if your code is sprinkled with M$ "uglified" function names, the porting effort is increased, when you want to support more standardised platforms. Even where the M$ functionality *does* differ from the POSIX norm, I would respectfully suggest that there are better ways to handle the distinction than trying to discriminate between names with and without leading underscores, e.g. #if defined(_WIN32) || defined(_MSC_VER) # define mkdir(p,m) _mkdir(p) #endif then just use the standard POSIX format throughout your code; for those functions where there is no discernable change in functionality, just use the POSIX form as a matter of course. > ...and unlike Microsoft's headers, MinGW's are not designed to be > maintainable or readable - just random cut/paste excerpts from other > headers. You are certainly entitled to this opinion, and I respect that, but I would also respectfully beg to differ. Regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
