Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>I think Bruce was mostly trying to make all the similar tests look > >>alike. Also I agree that "if a && !b" is clearer than "if !b && a"; > >>the latter requires a bit more thought to parse the extent of the ! > >>operator... > >> > >> > > > >Right, just consistency. > > > > > > > Ok. I understand now. > > I'm not sure exactly what Bruce checked, so I just spent a few cycles > making sure that we did not inadvertantly pick up a define of WIN32 from > windows.h anywhere else. I *think* we are OK on that. However, ISTM this > is a foot just waiting to be shot - in retrospect using WIN32 as our > marker for native Windows, which we do in a great many places (around > 300 by my count) was a less than stellar choice, given that it is > defined by windows.h, and especially since we use that header for Cygwin > as well as for Windows native in a few places.
The use of WIN32 was because it usually does mean MinGW and Cygwin. We had lots of Cygwin-specific defines in there already so Win32 just means both Mingw and Cygwin. You will see only a few cases where we want Mingw and not Cygwin, but in those case we often also want MSVC and Borland, so it really is WIN32 && ! __CYGWIN__. We do have one or two tests for __MINGW32__ where we really do want just that. Would you look around and see if this can be improved. I can't see any. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
