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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
